User talk:Deathphoenix/Archive3

This is an archive of previous discussions. If you wish to leave me a message, you can do so on my main talk page.

Mindmatrix scam adminship

As fellow residents of this land, I feel it is my duty to employ my newly-granted priviliges to ensure that this politically unstable land may one day achieve a level of stability and functional governance that we all desire. To that end, please use the attached funds with the strictest confidence to accomplish this goal. (Yes, you're right, functional governance and Canadian politics is an oxymoron.) Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmauld Place

Why did you delete my point about Regulus on Grimmauld Place, calling him Arcturus is still theory. Graham1991 17:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, it was just that I wasn't sure about the reason why you'd done it. Graham1991 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thank you, Deathphoenix, for your lawyer-joke inserting support in my RfA (I won't sue! I won't sue) - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}[reply]

Esperanza elections

File:Voting box clipart.gif

Hi Deathphoenix/Archive3: This is a quick note just to let you know that there's an election under way at Esperanza. If you'd like to become a candidate for Administrator General or the Advisory Council, just add your name here by 15 December 2005. Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December.

You've received this spam because you signed up for it here. To stop the spam, pop over and remove yourself and you'll never hear from Esperanza again!

➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to Vandalism

Thx for replying, but I didn't see any warnings about what i wrote, so how was i supposed to know that i wasn't supposed to talk about "doing it" in a movie?

Previous unsigned post by 216.250.38.77 (talk • contribs)

Dumbledore Image Message

Please do not patronize me. I purposely deleted the image of "Professor Dumbledore". I have edited articles before and was not, as you put it 'testing'. Professor Dumbledore is a character from a novel. As being based on the novels, the movies are representations of the novel at best, and the true Professor Albus Dumbledore does not have a photograph. Further, his portrayal in the films was far from perfect, and the two actors who played his role did not even read the novels of which they were performing. Thus I find it misrepresenting to show a photograph of an actor trying to play the Professor as part of his wikipedia article. The character is fundamentally separate from the actor who plays the role, especially in the case of a movie adapted from a novel. If you insist on using pictures to "spice up" the article, please use graphical representations of the character approved by the author, J.K. Rowling, and not a photograph of the actor who played the role. This is as ridiculous as putting a picture of James Caviezel in the article on Jesus. James Caviezel is NOT Jesus, just as neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon are Dumbledore. If you consider yourself an "expert" on Harry Potter enough to take it upon yourself to maintain the Wikipedia articles, at least have the common decency to recognize what Dumbledore is and to not scatter false images throughout the articles.

Thank You.

Previous unsigned post by Lagrangian (talk • contribs)

Dear oh dear oh dear, tut tut, you really do have something rather large up your posterior Lagrangian. The pictures always quite clearly state (not only on this article but on thousends of others) that it is an actor portraying the character, i.e. "Richard Harris playing Dumbledore". Quite self explanatory and not hard to grasp. I do now wonder if it is now going to be a mission in life to remove pictures of actors portraying characters across the whole of wikipedia. Or is it just Dumbledore you have a fixation with, and the vehmency you argue your case with almost hints at a disturbingly unhealthy fanatisism. Dan 16:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller (musician)

Clearly a {{db-repost}}. See deleted edits of this page. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 20:53, Dec. 14, 2005

Yes. The "Content was: ..." is always helpful for determining concealed relevance. Also, being able to play two instruments is not an assertion of notability so it's also {{nn-bio}}, and arguably {{db-spam}} and {{nocontent}} (pwned). I would have deleted it on sight, but I'm not an admin yet. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:02, Dec. 14, 2005

Update: I am an admin now. Thank you for the support. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:21, Dec. 17, 2005

Thank you

Thank you for bringing me back to Wikipedia. I was going to leave, and was checking my last messages when I saw yours. I am glad that I am appreciated and you have made good contributions, too. Please respond. Pax Christi.--Anti-Anonymex2 ^{Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco!} 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Nomination

Evilphoenix would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Evilphoenix to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deathphoenix/Archive3. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 13:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Overland

Dear Colleague:

Regarding the scathing comment you left Dr. Overland yesterday, I would like to kindly request that you retract your hideous balladmongery. As you can see, we cited our sources accurately. It was grossly inappropriate and completely out of line. Your barbarious statement only reveals the extent of your ignorance. On the morrow I would like to request that you telephone me at my mobile which is 1(925)285 3835 to discuss this matter further.

I look forward to speaking with you tomrrow

Pip! Pip! Cheerio!

Dr. Joeseph Hahn, Secretary to Dr. Samual L. Overland, PhD.

Previous post by 67.188.240.163 (talk • contribs)

Clearly, you have never read "A History of Western Society". A good portion of Chapter 23 is devoted to Overland Shipment. Also,keep in mind that there is a class action lawsuit against wikipedia. There. I cited my sources. Happy now? No hard feelings chap, make the changes to Sam's page that you like. Brush it by me first if you would.

Cheerio

P.S. I would like to have a conversation with you via telephone to clear this thing up.

I did not mean to intimidate you. I apologize. No more posts will be made from me.

--67.188.240.163 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One RfA nom later, and suddenly I think I'm something special ;-)

Greetings young Padawan. I must caution you to more carefully tune your senses, and to compare revisions of articles not just to the last revision, but also to the last revision you trust, something weird might creep in un-noticed. Note the difference between your recent reversion to Harry Potter and mine immediately following, you missed some lovely nonsense about "wizard rock" [1]. However, it pleases me greatly to see you doing so well in your Trials. Soon you shall be a Jedi. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can....

Can you have a look @ two Barnstar awards that I have suggested ?Martial Law 08:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. This is a copied announcement, please reply on My Talk Page or in the category talk if you have any questions. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

Hi,

The reason I modified the article was to help with the cleanup tag that was indicated at the top of the page. To be quite honest, the current plot synopsis is almost useless. If my modifications were too long that's fine, I could have shortened them down quite a bit to remove extra info.

It looks to me as though the current plot synopsis is beyond bad, though, and with a cleanup tag already in place I figured I had some time to try to fix it up a bit.

Cheers, Jeremy

Hi,

In response to your question to me...

I think the synopsis is both too short and is just in need of a general cleanup. :) It's definitely not too long.

Phrique 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Sure, I might be able to just clean it up a bit and keep it similar length. I'll take a look at it.

Phrique 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Barnstar

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- 02:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent news! It seems that receiving the Barnstar Barnstar was what put him over the top. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! It is well earned. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 07:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And another congratuations from me. I have no qualms about you mop-wielding powers, but feel free to ask any questions before you go bash some vandals on the head! Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! -- Syrthissphoenix 14:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats Deathphoenix! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Hmmm, I wonder what your wife will say if you apply for ArbCom next year! ;) Cheers! :D - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! That reply really made my day! XD - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; you really deserve adminship! Just don't let vandal-whacking overshadow your real life commitments. ;-) Cheers, Sango123 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha... Try taking the Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test again. :) Sango 123 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! If I could give you some advice for next time you visit Phoenix: don't ;). Go somewhere there are things to do. Dmcdevit·t 18:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Contrats on adminship! -- Jbamb 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to you, and condolences to your wife. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats and you are welcome. My best wishes to your wife. If you like hot summers (119 degrees highest that I saw) you would like it out there.--Dakota ~ ε 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I go a couple of weeks without visiting the forum and, just my luck, I miss the opportunity to support the RfA of one of the good guys! Sorry, DP! You know you have my moral support. Welcome to the "mop mob" (I just made that up!). :) Redux 02:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and thanks for the message! Hey, "newbie Admins" have a hard life around here. The first time I used the rollback (I had been an Admin for a week or so), I did it to a registered user, and all hell broke loose. Four users protested. Then, what do you know, 24 hours later, another Admin rolled back one of my edits. That was 6 months ago, and I'm still waiting for the angry mob to go after him like they did me... So, if you delete the Main Page, I'll be there to say give the guy a break. And put down those pitchforks! Redux 03:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, so you've been to my 'hood?? Such a warm feeling... Redux 03:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howch e ng {chat} 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I was promoted with a final tally of 31/1/1. Your thoughtful suggestion has been noted. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can assist.--BorgQueen 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Preissner and protection

I think that the article is a candidate for {{deletedpage}} protection, since it has been recreated at least three times in a short time span. I've gone ahead and done the deed. Usually, page protection is simply an admin's judgement call. Protecting a deleted page is usually done just to save time though. I usually protect after 3-5 recreations, and then check back on the page in a couple of weeks. Hope this helps. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 17:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Severus Snape link modification. 30th December 2005.

I wasn't trying to "advertise". If you had bothered checking the modified link in the first place, you would have noticed that it is the exact same website that was already there. The website has moved to a *new host and domain address* and I was triyng to update that information. What you have done, is simply add the same site twice, and keep an old url that *does not exist anymore* and never will again. I thought the information at Wikipedia was supposed to be relevant and up-to-date, but feel free to continue linking to an old address, even when I have provided the new one, since it is my site, and it is not 'advertisement', considering that the site in question is a Snape Encyclopaedia/Lexicon itself, and contains far more facts than any of the other external links.

—the preceding unsigned comment is by SpinnersEnd (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phylogeography

I strongly suggest to you that you rethink the way you are dealing with volunteers on this site. Some people might have perceived you and others as wasting people's time by putting articles up for deletion. - Samsara 17:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. With respect to your comment,

Hopefully we can continue to work together on this great project.

I'll sign my name to that. - Samsara 09:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article Haley Delgado

I noticed you deleted the article I nominated, it contained six images, though, all taken from the subject's MySpace page, I assume you can delete them without further notice. If not, where should I nominate them for deletion?

The images can be found at the contributions page of the original creator of the deleted article.

O bli (Talk) 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Greetings Deathphoenix,
I wish to offer my gratitude supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spells and the Potter watchlist

First, thanks for the image added for mood purposes! Second, I just merged Spells and spell-like magic in the world of Harry Potter to Magic (Harry Potter) and was about to remove it from your watchlist, but since it still has a talk page that's linked to from elsewhere I decided on bugging you instead so you could decide. --Kizor 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I violated protocol?

Relatively new user, was checking out the Saugeen stripper article and got sucked into the AFD page. Responded to a couple that seemed interesting. Phantasmo 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:WiCker basket

You're absolutely right, and thanks. I don't know why it didn't occur to me at the time but I was in such a hurry (on my way out the door, if I recall) that I didn't really have time to think. Anyway, thanks for catching that! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure wiki

BTW, nobody is suggesting that "hard deletion" would go away. It definitely would be used in cases of attacks, copyvios and whatnot, even if we also had the pure wiki deletion system. The blurry line between deletion and vandalism is dealt with by using an appropriate edit summary, same as if someone removes a section from an article. Friday (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, you were supposed to be instantly converted by my stunningly sensible argument. :-) Friday (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Voldemort

Hi there, i'd just like to tell you i've been doing a bit of cleanup and styling of Lord Voldemort - it's a good article, but could use some condensing in some sections :-) Anyway, hopefully, it'll become a featured article. Spum 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi,
I just want to say thanks for supporting me on my request for adminship! It passed by a 58/3/0 margin, so I am now an administrator. If you need me to help you out, or you find that I'm doing anything wrong, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA questions

I just want to inform you that I've answered your questions at my RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aecis. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 10:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hopefully i wont have to change my name or get any more grief about it. I have already made some edits to the " World of Warcraft" page, since i love the game anyways, plus there wasn't anything about servers on there so i put some there. = ) WoWjUnKiE7290 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA/William M. Connolley 2

You participated in the first RFA so you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2. (SEWilco 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My RfA

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Ravin

You voted in the DRV for Seth Ravin, and I wanted to let you know that the article is again at AFD: Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Seth Ravin 2. Thanks. -R. fiend 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed CanCon barnstar

I have proposed the creation of a new barnstar to recognize Canadian contributions of significance. I thought, since you have awarded similar barnstars, that you might be interested in commenting.

--JTBurman 12:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Wow, DP! What a lot of questions for those poor candidates for Adminship! You're really making them work for it! Ever considered a career in the FBI? ;) Redux 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about the RfB. I decided to try for it when I noticed that we have one user doing 80% of the RfA Bureaucrat work. And I was 10% shy of the required consensus (I got an 80% consensus, but they are asking for 90% to promote). I appreciate your moral support! Besides, didn't I miss your RfA?? :S
And speaking of it, lucky those questions didn't turn on you when it was time for your RfA. I can see it: a user who had just been through a RfA sees RfA/Deathphoenix up there and goes: Soo. Look who is up for Adminship now. Here's 85 questions I'd like to see answered. Then a second user comes along: Oh yeah, here's 15 more. And a third user: A 100 questions?! He can answer 20 more. Closing Bcrat report: Inconclusive. RfA too long to process. I don't get paid for doing this, you know. Redux 12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Violations

This is Samhita. I'm sorry about the copyright violations, but I only just realized this when I checked my talk page today. I've never even looked at it before, which I realize now was a mistake. --Samhita 12:45, January 22 2006

RfA

Hi Deathphoenix,

Thanks for contributing to my RfA. Just wanted to let you know that I've answered the questions you asked. Thanks again! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 15:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA questions

Hi. Are you going to be putting those additional five questions on every single RfA? Perhaps you could just suggest on the RfA talk page that they are added to the current stock questions. Proto t c 10:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on my RFA it would be the nicest one --A dam1213 Talk + 12:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi Deathphoenix, you commented that the RFR proposal was unnecessary because of the existence of popup tools. The reason why popup tools and godmode light are insufficient is because they are more taxing on the servers and slower to use, especially for contributors still on slower connections. More detail is available. If you have any further questions about it I would be happy to answer them! Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Speculation Template?

I was thinking perhaps it would be useful if some Wiki-admins of great Wiki-skill (I'm thinking perhaps you, Beowulf314159, and Hermione1980) could work together and create a "speculation" warning template - ie

or

or something like that - which would theoretically be used on such wiki-pages as those that tend to attract a lot of rampant fan speculation. It could work much like the "spoiler" template - but alert readers and editors that "the following information is speculative", but is at least reasonable, supported by existing authentic text, or widely believed by concensus - something on those lines.

Some speculation items that seem reasonably probable (eg: In "Book Seven", Harry and his Hogwarts friends are expected to hunt down and attempt to destroy the remaining Horcrux(es), before Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort), or the list of known and "probable" horcruxes that were specifically mentioned by Dumbledore or otherwise in the text, would be allowed. Other posts that are clearly fanatical, agenda-driven speculation (eg: Harry is a horcrux, Harry's scar is a horcrux, Harry's wand is a horcrux, Neville's Toad is a horcrux, etc etc etc.) would be dismissed as having no foundation or supporting evidence in the existing texts, validated interviews, etc. Anything permitted as "authenticate" speculation (yes, I know it is oxymoronic) should have some kind of "chapter and verse" authority, or other reasonably conclusive evidence that anyone could recognize as reasonable.

At least it might help keep some of the random speculation, that keeps randomly and anonymously popping up, "corralled" in a smaller area for consideration. Or perhaps this is a terrible and counterproductive idea... --T-dot 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accidental deletion of my workshop page

Sorry, I forgot to put the nowiki tag around the 'deleted by user' clip. How do I get my page back? Thanks, Chris 22:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helter skelter

Hi, an online admin! Hope you don't mind me asking, but could you look at the above speedy delete request please? I'd like to do the move and fixup before proceeding to bed :) --kingboyk 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much, much appreciated! --kingboyk 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IfD

Nice to see someone else posting in today's (28^th) IfD :-p --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD

Hey, so they want to delete Redux from Wikipedia ?? (I feel like one of those athletes that talk about themselves in the third person..). I know how I can save the entry: I'll just turn it into an article about me. That ought to make everything right. :-O
Thanks a lot for the amusing link! Redux (oh no, they did what you said! My user page is gone! ;) ) 19:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, delete me from the database, eh? Tempting, but I'll have to pass <8). That would be like one of those suspense movies where someone suddenly vanishes without a trace. After much searching, in the end we find out who the culprit was: it was the Deathphoenix!! And you know what usually happens to the villains of those movies: a horrible death. We can't have that. The Vanished Redux 12:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comments on my page

Thanx a bunch for opening the discussion concerning OpenInfo. I responded to Eliezer's defense of the situation on the thread you created. Briefly, OpenInfo deleted my warnings not to vandalize my comments. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't deleting warnings considered vandalism? If you look at the time stamps, OpenInfo was hardly giving me a chance to tag the article, explain my tag on the talk page and warn him to stop vandalizing. All while deleting my warnings. I'm new and still learning how to use this site. Thank you for your patience with me as I learn.KnessetP.R.Guy 20:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, that based on KPRG's edits, he is definitely not neutral. In fact, he simply uses force and the Wikipedia equivalent of yelling to get his points across, by erasing other people's edits, and putting his points on top.

Yes, KPRG is Israeli. However, he does not accurately reflect the Jewish point of view, and should not be overwriting edits by an approved Judaism editor. I have been researching Messianicism since 1990, so that is over 15 years, and I agree with what Eliezer has written.

I have talked with Jews from all over, and other than Israelis, have not met ANY Jews who agree with Messianicism, or legitimize it. This includes Jews who are self-proclaimed AGNOSTICS, who get very upset when they hear about organizations trying to convert Jews.

OpenInfo 01:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

follow up question on my rfa

thankyou for your follow-up questions which i have now answerd at my rfaBenon 05:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandal IP-shifting

Hi, the user you blocked at 67.71.140.191 (talk) came back as 67.71.140.132 and then probably (from the same edits to Porridge as 64.231.15.233. As .132 they vandalized my homepage, User_talk:Yamamoto_Ichiro, User:GraemeL and (suprise) Porridge.

Probably want to sweep them up in the net as well and do whatever you do in extending blocks on persistent vandals skating around blocks etc. Georgewilliamherbert 08:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Problems on Messianic Judaism

I followed your advice and tried revising the article to be more neutral. (Admittedly, I'm still a bit awkward with Wiki codes) In the process, the article got locked and no alert tags appear to reflect the controversy around the article as it is worded. As I predicted, Eliezer and OpenInfo's propoganda prevails.KnessetP.R.Guy 13:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article was written by a collaborative effort that includes members of many different religions. I have only modified approximately three sentences in the article itself (after leaving large amounts of comments in the discussion page).

What you are proposing to write would fill the article with complete propaganda by members from the UMJC, and leave no other POVs. OpenInfo 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Totally deserved! Redux 18:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend! This one is particularly special because we were directly involved in its creation. Thanks a lot :) Redux 22:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Openinfo

Hi Deathphoenix. It appears that the issue with User:Openinfo has been worked out now; is that correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your RFA questions

See my answers here! --Mb1000 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Many thanks for participating in my RfA. Although you voted neutral, I appreciate the kind comments you made and hope we'll be able to collaborate on something in the future. All the best, Jamyskis

Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List idea

Top 100 fan theories about Horcuxs. What do you think? ;) I've come up with a new one: Voldemort is a Horcrux! :D - Beowulf314159 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh damn! That one is hard to beat - I LIKE it! How about, there are no Horcruxes, it's all a hoax by Lord Voldemort/Albus Dumbledore who really are the same person. - Beowulf314159 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Your immediate support to my RfA went absolutely appreciated. In case you didn't see, the final vote was 71/1 and I've been given sysop powers. I was pretty nervous when I put it up-- they tend to swing one way or the other in the first few hours-- but your lengthy comment sent me dancing through the halls. Thanks for the WikiLove! I do think your optional questions should be made a standard part of the RfA template... :) Ashibaka tock 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[2] Thank you! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.43.196.54 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Your comment on not blocking said "hadn't vandalized since last warning" because I added a warning at 19:27 and he/she vandalized at 19:23. But there was a test3 at 19:12 as well (for a different page). Are you saying because I put test4 on the talk page this IP shouldn't be blocked? I thought clear vandalism after test3 was blockable. -Jcbarr 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.98.2.34

Re that blocklog: 21:03, 31 January 2006 Deathphoenix unblocked User:204.98.2.34 (Edit war, not vandalism)

The last four edits to bitch were blanking+replacing content with "kat savaldi" and duplicating a section. What gives? Femto 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was before, when another admin removed the IP from WP:AIV for being an edit war after I blocked it. I concurred, and that's that. If the recent actions are vandalism, that's fine, the IP should be blocked. --D e ath phoenix 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the previous actions might have been vandalism, but the IP hasn't made any edits since being warned. I don't think it needs to be blocked now. --D e ath phoenix 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, 20:57 is after 20:56. Not that it still mattered since it stopped, though I think the rapid edits to bitch together with Pilotguy's alert would have warranted to keep at least a short-term block on grounds of being a return vandal. Femto 18:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HP: Book Seven talk archive

Hallelujah, glory!!11!1! Won't stop them, though, but it's a start. Thank you! H e rmione1980 13:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Deathphoenix, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would like to thank you for participating in my rfa, and for raising concerns which, I must admit, were completely valid. Thanks also for helping me out by providing useful links. I will do my best to act on them, and work towards being a better editor. If there is anything I can ever do for you dont hesitate to ask! All the best Banez

Pacific Trim 7" -> Pacific Trim

Well, I guess I just can't wait, can't I? ;) I actually was in the process of closing it myself, so I merged the articles, and when I went back to close it, I saw that you had done that. There's no MFD's to close, no AFD's to close, can't close TFD's until Special:Whatlinkshere is fixed... I feel useless. ;) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]