User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 06

are polls evil?

True. But this particular poll is not particularly helpful, for a variety of reasons. Radiant_>|< 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello--I am already messing around with the Userboxes and other fun things--Wikipedia as MySpace!:P

Clemson University T-shirts are really cool. My dad was traveling over there and got me one, I get lots of good feedback when I wear it.

Greetings!

Hello--I am already messing around with the Userboxes and other fun things--Wikipedia as MySpace!:P

Clemson University T-shirts are really cool. My dad was traveling over there and got me one, I get lots of good feedback when I wear it. --Hermgirl 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well alright then, hope you enjoy yourself. If you ever have any questions let me know. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:TINMC

Hi, you're down as being an an active cabalist. Is that still true? There are plenty of cases awaiting mediator response, please drop by if you can! Dan100 (Talk) 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Man that took me a second to translate....but yeah. I'm willing to participate, but I have a policy against seeking out controversial issues to mediate on, I have enough of them come my way as is. That being said, I added myself there to let people know I was willing to help, and I still am, but basically I have to be asked...not trying to be snobby, I just try to only get involved where I'm asked to intercede, if that makes sense. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Kumanovo

I encourage you to thoroughly read the comments on the discussion for my RFC. Actually, dont even read the comments, just read the section headers. Then you will understand that this is not a content dispute. I have tried to get this point across, but people just dont listen. freestylefrappe 11:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the discussion, and I have already posted my comment. Your actions as an Administrator were out of line. You do not understand the requirements and responsibilities of Adminship, and looking at your actual RfA, I disagree with the closing of it and don't think you should have ever been promoted. You need to learn how to appropriately serve in your role as an Administrator and an editor. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Gov_Bredsen.jpg

Was there a specific reason this image was deleted, other than the fact that Scott Fisher uploaded it? I know Scott Fisher is a notorious vanity hound, but that particular image was worked out as a compromise after I carefully explained all the Wikipedia guidelines to him. Has he reverted back to his old habits? Kaldari 15:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted all of his uploaded images, basically because he lied about the provenance of so many images, I felt that we could not be certain that any of his images were not in fact copyrighted, and therefore we could not afford to keep them on the Encyclopedia. It didn't really have anything to do with his vanity, just the legality of the images. Unfortunately, some images that were probably ok went with that, but I did run through quite a number that were obviously still going to be copyright violations. I'm sorry if that ended up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but if you yourself have a copy of the image I'd welcome you to re-upload it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened in Boston?

This did. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I was rooting around trying to find a reference to what he was referring to. They circled for several hours to burn off fuel, why not just go where they were going to burn off fuel instead? *shrugs*. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA

Hi - I just wanted to drop by and thank you for supporting my RfA. I'll do my best as an admin to help the dream of Wikipedia become the reality. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bout damn time too. :-P Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being level-headed

I'll post my last comments now. Key words are "fought as a unit in battle." As a military man, I can assure you that the citadel folks are trying to say that they had cadets fight in battles, and that is fine. That the citadel had cadets fight in battles is not being disputed. "Fighting as a unit" is different altogether. Dozens of schools had students fight in various battles in the Civil War, that was the nature of the war. Only one school fought as a unit in combat, ever...and that's VMI. Sorry for being heated (I'm a South Carolinian myself) but I continually see citadel folks latch onto VMI in virtually every regard, and they are definitely stretching the truth here. It's just plain "cheezy!" Tac1 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation

When you updated the list of Active bans you gave 2006 as the year in which that ban would terminate. Linuxbeak mentioned a duration of one week, so I think that you might like to change that '6' to a '5'. 131.155.229.224 01:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

whoopsie. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. karmafist 04:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please direct all further discussion of Pigsonthewing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Probation. Thank you.

My RFA

Well, looks like my RFA will pass very soon. I just wanted to thank you for your nomination, and for your last minute nominator support. ;-) I will try and use my admin powers for good rather than evil. Anyways, I just wanted to bring this particular thread off the RFA in my response:

1. Strong Support. I though I introduced Evil and Death though... Reasonably sure... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

   I wasn't sure what you were saying for a while until I noticed your edit summary. You are of course referring to this conversation, but I had met Deathphoenix prior to that on the HP WikiProject. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

   You may not know this, but the first time I encountered your username was in this VfD. --Deathphoenix 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   I didn't, and that's awesome. I hadn't ever noticed that comment either, I don't think I'd gone back to the discussion after voting on it. That was only my second week on the Wiki! I didn't realize we went that far back. All five Phoenixes? Where are the other Three? What are they? GoodPhoenix? LawfulPhoenix? ChaoticPhoenix? :-P Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

   There's Phoenix2, and even the original Phoenix, who only made four edits in August 2001 and one in January 2003. We'll need to find one more form the head & torso. Is there a Kingphoenix? --Deathphoenix 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

   There is another Phoenix... ^Wacko_Phoenix 06:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

   Yeah, I live there! Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Greetings right back. Thanks for message. Wikipedia's great. easyer 05:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Evilphoenix/Archive 06! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Scottfisher

Hi there. I just got an email recently from Scott Fisher, who I had some contact with back when he was editing physics articles. I offered to inquire into his banning; I looked into what's been posted about him, and it seems to me like he might be a productive user if he could just stay away from uploading/adding images completely. (He clearly can't or won't avoid copyvios properly, but maybe avoiding images completely would be a simple rule that he could follow if it was made very clear that it was absolute.) Do you think it's worth giving him another shot, or has he already been given enough chances to clean up his act? Thanks, SCZenz 06:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really active right now for the next day or so, if you don't mind waiting a bit for me to get back to you. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, no hurry. -- SCZenz 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So, to respond to your comment, personally I'm not in favor of Scottfisher editing on Wikipedia. He has uploaded images claiming {{pd-self}} on images that were clearly not taken by him. He ended up indefinitely blocked by Fvw for it, but I unblocked him in order to give him a chance to reform. He managed to cooperate somewhat, but I also warned him to not upload or add images to articles under any circumstances, and he continued to do both despite being warned, and so I blocked him indefinitely for it. Being as no other Administrator has chosen to unblock him, that essentially amounts to a ban, unless an Administrator chooses to unblock him. However, he has lied about the provenance of uploaded photos, which is according to Jimbo a bannable offense, and he also created a sockpuppet in an attempt to circumvent his ban, and edited several images that he had uploaded as Scottfisher to attribute them to his new name. This does not encourage me that we would obey a restriction on image uploading. I would suggest you also speak with Fvw, and get his input. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like the extra chance I was thinking of giving him may already have been given. I might check in with Fvw also. -- SCZenz 01:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This Fair Use Nonsense in regards to Template:User US Democrat

I'm disappointed you'd say such a thing without seeing this, but I suppose it's my fault not for putting that there right away after such a hostile comment.

Also, if you could, please answer these two things that the Fair Use people don't seem to want to tell me...

1. What is the legal reasoning behind this user page/article space stuff?(And don't give me "wiki-policy", we both know that can be changed with a click of a button and a mob.)
2. How would the Democratic Party suing Wikipedia be anything other than cutting off its nose to spite its face? karmafist 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak to your first question. However, if the consensus is for the text to say that, you shouldn't alter that. period. The fact that "wiki-policy" can be changed with a click of a button doesn't mean it should be changed. We as Administrators must work to determine and uphold consensus, especially on policy mattters, and if this means frequently patrolling and reverting changes to policy pages, so be it. But you as an editor shouldn't change the section if there is consensus for the section to remain in. Second I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the Democratic party or any other group would actually sue Wikipedia, it's an issue of making sure we are nonetheless compliant with the law and with Wikimedia policy. Even if it would happen to be legal to use the image in the User space, current policy on Wikipedia is against that, so as such, you should respect that. You're welcome to question the policy, you're welcome to encourage discussion of the policy, and you're expecially welcome to ask someone who is more familiar with copyright law and policy than myself your second question. I'd suggest Splash or Deathphoenix. Either way, removing the text itself is not the most productive way to pursue this issue. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus

3 or 4 people agreeing and then over 700,000 others who don't care enough to disagree isn't a consensus to me. You can find consenseii on WP:RFA, WP:RFB, WP:AFD, or anyplace else where there's a clear and up front vote. A "consensus" achieved from a talk page is little more than a smoke filled room justification for mob rule. Sorry, but I won't be intimidated by their paranoia, regardless of its good faith. karmafist 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't feel there's been enough people considering the policy, you could always ask for more people to look at it, such as the policy Village Pump or an RfC. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist

Hi, I hope it's alright, but I'm unblocking Karmafist since he has promised to me that he's definitely staying away from Pigsonthewing from now on. Just to let you know, Talrias (t | e | c) 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Possibly Unfree Image"

Hi, could you possibly explain to me the reasoning behind the deletion of some images used in Template:User Canterbury Bulldogs, Template:User Canberra Raiders, Template:User Brisbane Broncos, Template:User Bangladesh Cricket Team, Template:User Australian Cricket Team? They are each classified as "Team and corporate logos - For identification" on the Fair Use page. mdmanser 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I just restored all of those pages from Kelly Martin's recent Userpage deletion rampage. You're welcome. As far as the images, her listed reason for deleting the template was that the images were not appropriate for the userspace. It was innappropriate for her to delete the templates for that reason (she should have just removed the images from the template), so I just removed the images after I restored them. Personally I dont know if they're usable under Fair Use, the consensus seems to be that they're not usable in Userspace, although personally I dont care. If you want to restore the images, be my guest, but be warned someone may raise an issue with it. Hope that helps. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks for that. I wasn't aware of her rampage, so thanks for letting me know. I've just read the requests for comment for her actions too. Cheers. mdmanser 03:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing the Carnegie Mellon logo from userbox

Hi, I was wondering why the Carnegie Mellon logo was removed from Template:User_CMU, while other userboxes such as the Template:User-hp-project and Template:User Ravenclaw on your userpage still seem to be using Fair Use images. Thanks. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 08:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See the above section. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection

Hi there. When you protect a page, please remember to add the tag to the article and list it at WP:PP. It helps keep track of things. Thanks. -Splash^talk 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR problem

Hiya - can I get you to take an administrator's look at the current last entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, regarding SavvyCat? The notice has been sitting there for 2 hours, and the other admin I asked about it an hour ago hasn't responded. Thanks! --Krich (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Alumni Somaiya MU

Hi,

Can you unrevert Template:User Alumni Somaiya MU? I would not understand reason for removing the image. Chirags 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct wording is "I do not understand the reason for the image removal". To answer your question, see User_talk:Evilphoenix#Removing_the_Carnegie_Mellon_logo_from_userbox. Thanks.

User:AlMac|^(talk) Thanks for the links

Even though it has been 6 months since I started editing, I feel I am still struggling to absorb, learn, and apply Wiki high standards of appropriate content, style, organization, fair use etc. and dispute resolution. Although the edit statistics show that I have had 60 deletions, I feel like I have had hundreds of edits reversed, both by higher authorities because I not yet learned enough of the basics, and by peers who have a POV significantly different from my own interpretation of how best to work towards neutrality of presentation. My roller coaster ride in terms of time availability to check things, means I can go for a few months, with time only to answer occasional Reference Desk questions, and not check what's happening on articles I been contributing to, which means I not react speedily to disputes over my efforts. So far I think my most positive contribution has been splitting Time travel in fiction off of Time travel which is primarily article on notion that this is scientifically plausible. At least my contributions THERE have not been wiped out yet, like my contributions elsewhere. I have contributed in small part to some article improvement drives. At the moment, I think it is more constructive for me to try to help improve existing articles, to help teach me the ropes, until my writing style is much closer to Wiki high standards, before I spend much time creating new articles. User:AlMac|^(talk) 03:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter WikiProject userboxes

Hey Evilphoenix,

I noticed the Hogwarts emblem has been removed from the {{user-hp}} userbox, however the individual house emblems remain...what is the situation with these? I asked Hermione1980 and she mentioned something about a dispute over fair use and said you'd started the WikiProject and to ask you...which I am now doing. Thanks, --Gary Kirk (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The situation is that people have bothered to remove the images from the HP project template but not the individual house templates. That's about as much as I really know. :-) Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Broadway WikiProjects

Hi. You have listed yourself as a participant in one or more of the following wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Theatre Wikipedia:WikiProject Broadway Wikipedia:WikiProject Off/Off-Off Broadway

I wanted to send out this bulletin to re-spark interest in these projects and hopefully advance their progress. Please contribute in any spare time you may have, in order to make this section of wikipedia even better.

If you know anyone who may be interested in working on this project, please say something to them.

Clarkefreak ∞ 02:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: my essay

Meh, I've been thinking lately that I need a wikibreak, but I'm too addicted to take one. I don't really intend to leave any time soon. I probably will rm Kelly's RfC from my watchlist, though; I don't intend to comment any more and looking at it just makes me very annoyed. Hermione1980 01:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably going to write an opinion myself pretty soon to my User page. I've been inactive for a few days anyway, I'm lighting a show now (yay) so I've been uber-busy. Hope you're well. :-) Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with your subsections on Enigma Variations

Sorry, but I think the 15 subsections you've added [1] are a real mess for the page: the TOC is way too long, while each subsection is only one sentence long.

If you really need to have anchors for direct links to specific Variations, I'd suggest your using HTML here. Instead of your current

====Variation 1 (L'istesso tempo) "C.A.E."====

you'd put back the ";" prefix and add an all-lowercase anchor (with a comment to prevent others wondering if that's to be kept):

; Variation 1 (L'istesso tempo) "C.A.E."<DIV ID="variation1"><!--ANCHOR FOR LINKS--></DIV>

As an added bonus, your anchors would now be like "#variation1" which is:

• Much shorter and readable than "#Variation_1_.28L.27istesso_tempo.29_.22C.A.E..22"
• Permanently independent of subsection names (anyone could change them, not knowing he'll mess with your external links' anchors).

Note BTW that in HTML, you can add an ID="anchor" attribute to any tag, even such as

<B ID="anchor">bold text</B>

Regards

--

cool, go for it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

This user is an admin who has contributed materially to the Math sections of the encyclopedia. It is understandable that you do not know him as you are in different spheres. But he is held in high regard by others. Have an Admin star. Regards --Ancheta Wis 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's great, I'm sure he'll have lots of support then. Best wishes, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"I don't support a banning here"?

As I seem to have missed the memo, I'm sure you'll be glad to remind me just when one person's support or lack thereof became sufficient reason to reverse another administrator's action without having the courtesy to contact him about it first. Regards — Dan | talk 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry that I didn't think about that prior, I'll contact him now. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK block

With regard to your decision to unblock User:Mistress Selina Kyle, I see no justification for an unblocking here. I have restored the block and taken the case back to WP:AN/I for review [2]. I find your comments suggesting that the arbitration committee elections may result in a different view being taken towards this troll to be in poor taste. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:MSK unblocking

Okay. My understanding is that MSK is appealing her block / filing a case against me sometime when the Arbitration Committee becomes stable after the election. Thank you again.--Sean|Black 01:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there's any way to calm her down? I'd like to see her stick around, but I don't think that's going to be feasible if she keeps on getting herself into fights like this. The entire episode with her has felt like watching someone you care about die from some kind of addiction or illness. karmafist 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Kelly

I've unblocked her and advised her to choose her words more carefully. I agree with the spirit of her message, that editing through an open proxy generally indicates that one is not up to any good. I'm not an ardent supporter of Kelly either, but I do find your blocking her to be inappropriate, given the context. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:16, Jan. 13, 2006

I'm curious why she was unblocked. I feel your block was justified, and just because she is a admin/high ranking member of the community doesn't mean she is given more warnings is it? If anything she should be held to a higher standard than others because of her standing. Mike 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the block wasn't likley to cause any sufficient good, so I was curious as to your thinking behind it. As I mentioned on IRC on first blush it looked punative as opposed to prevenative.--Tznkai 02:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

However Kelly Martin clearly states that personal attacks will result in a block, what allows her to make these attacks and not be blocked? I just think she should be held to the same standard as any other user, if not a higher standard. Mike 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be holding anyone to any higher standard than that which we apply to the editors making their first edit. Wikipedia:Blocking policy has no specific stance in favor of blocking someone for a single personal attack. Furthermore, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Remedies states "In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked". One personal attack is not an extreme case. In the very least, a warning should have been given prior to the block and if the behavior continued then a block should have been applied. Concurring with Tznkai, without the warning and follow-on continued personal attacks, there is no evidence that a block would result in something productive. That said, I disagee with Feakofnurure's unblocking without first discussing the matter with Evilphoenix. This is the type of behavior that can result in wheel warring, with the victim being the user repeatedly blocked/unblocked. In summary; errors were made on both sides. --Durin 18:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think we should hold Administrators to a higher standard. Administrators are users who have passed a Peer Review process, and should be respected users with a strong understanding of policy, and the ability to mediate and defuse conflict. The fact is that new and inexperienced users can and will view Administrators differently than regular users. They're more likely to take an Admins opinion as being more representative of the functioning of Wikipedia. Therefore Administrators have an obligation to behave with a higher standard of behavior than regular users. Take that even further on Arbitrators. They are supposed to be experts on Mediation, they are the highest court on Wikipedia, and the Arbitrators should be absolute models of civility and consensus building.

That being said, I'm not trying to hold Kelly Martin to a higher standard than other users, I'd settle for her being held to the same standard as other users. While I cited one specific personal attack in my block, my decision to block was also based on a history of incivility and poor behavior, behavior unwelcome in an Administrator and inexcusable in an Arbitrator. The fact is that she has been warned about personal attacks before, and still continues in it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Durin on both couts. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

But Kelly Martin has a repeated pattern of personal attacks against mass numbers of people; she has stated that she holds anyone who uses their userpages for any purpose other than direct facilitation of the encyclopedia in contempt, just for starters. That barb at MSK was simply the latest in a long line starting from the Userbox Purge onward. Either way, she had it coming, and you have a Barnstar coming. Rogue 9 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Durin says above also... but Kelly Martin does not. She has said that it is policy to block for a single personal attack. Indeed, she has done it. I agree that blocks for a single personal attack and other minor 'offenses' not outlined in blocking policy are wrong... but the fact is that this has been done... several times... by several admins. Yet now that the same strictures are placed on Kelly's behaviour there are objections. This disparity and many others of like kind have convinced me that there is a significant problem of lower standards being applied to people as they become more 'senior'. That is an inherently destructive situation and thus I support Evilphoenix's action in this case... if admins are to be allowed to place punitive blocks based on self-defined policies then they must be subjected to the same standards. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 14:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who have commented. I'm starting tech this afternoon for a show I'm designing right now, which means I don't have a lot of time (hence my low level of activity lately). However, I would like to post a more detailed comment in response to several of your comments, so know that I will respond to those of you who have posted with concerns. Best regards, Evilphoenix 14:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung City

Seen here, [the Kim Il-Sung City deletion log], why did you think this was a "relic of vandalism"? Why do you call it that. I'm curious. --Shultz 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

this one? I didn't delete it. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Hey, you were one of (if not the) first person to give me some help around here. So for even if for nothing else it's sad to see you go :(

Have a good break, hope to see you back sometime. Maybe in the mean time I'll have to check out some of the 'stable version'/1.0 talk that I've seen around... Petros471 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung City

No, no! This one: [3]

Note the dash between the Il and the Sung. Just click on that very link (without changing it) and see. Why did you call it a "relic of vandalism"? --Shultz 10:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't, what your seeing in the deletion log is what the text of the article previously was, not what I actually said. As far as the particulars, I don't exactly recall the specifics, as that was five months ago, but from what I'm seeing looking at it now, the argument is that it's not appropriate for that name to redirect to Seoul as the city was never called that, but might have been if North Korea had won the Korean War and captured Seoul, which it did not. So the question I have for you is I'd like to better understand why you feel it should redirect to Seoul. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Teleboards

Why was Teleboards deleted and protected? I don't even see an AfD for that article, and the board has way over 5,000 members (therefore meeting the notability criteria). Wiwaxia 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done deletions in a while, so I don't specifically recall the article in question. Can you link to the appropriate deletion log so I can check? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Having personally linked to the article myself, the article was basically vandalism. While your assertion of notability for the site may in fact be true, our deletion decision was based on the extant article, which was utter rubbish, and not on the notability of the topic. If you would like to attempt an encyclopedic article about Teleboards, I suggest you write a draft at say, User:Wiwaxia/Teleboards, and then ask me (or another Administrator, since I may not be available) to review your draft and replace the article. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) because you participated in the first vote. Savidan 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yo

Despite your talk page being locked (thbbbbt), sorry, I've got an email half-written sitting in my draft folder and I'll try to finish and send it tomorrow. Things just kind of snowballed this week, so…Cheers, Hermione1980 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hey

I'll e-mail you, due to your wikibreak. Karmafist 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I note that you undeleted this page after Jimbo deleted it, and I cannot find the reason why you did so either on the article's talk page, on your talk page, or anywhere else. The topic is a divisive one and the article has been deleted and undeleted many times. Would you care to explain your actions? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I didn't mean to, and I apologise. I'm not sure if something has changed with the software in how Admins look at deleted pages or something, I've been on a Wikibreak so if theres something different I don't know about it. What happened was that I came across mention of the article being deleted on WP:AN, and went to the article to investigate. I attempted to access the deleted edits, in order to see what the state of the article was before it was deleted. However, for some reason I didn't see the link where I could review the previous edits, so I hit the Restore button, believing that would take me to where I could see the deleted edits...I thought for some reason that there would be one more button I'd need to push to actually restore the page, which it was not my intention to do. However the message said that the page had been restored. However when I went back to the article, I still saw the protected article with the {{deletedarticle}} template. I checked the page history, and only saw the recent revisions since the last deletion, not the long list of deleted edits. There was still the link to the deleted edits, however when I clicked on it there was a message saying that the page in question didn't have a page history, so I wasn't sure what had or hadn't happened. If I'd seen evidence that the page had been restored, I would have immediately re-deleted it, but for whatever reason it wasn't showing that to me in the way I expected, as it had also not shown me the deleted edits in the way I'd expected. So, if I re-created it, my apologies, that wasn't my intention, and I hadn't realized I actually had recreated it until I saw your message just now, which I'm responding to. Sorry about the confusion, I'm not entirely sure exactly what happened myself. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured out what I did wrong to begin with. I guess my mop's a little rusty or something. I re-deleted the page, and restored the {{deletedpage}} revision. Although I disagree with this page's deletion, it was not nor is not my intention to get involved in the dispute over it. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The undeletion interface is indeed clunky and I can understand what happened all too easily. While I do believe that the project is best served by deleting the article, there are many who disagree and I respect your views. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your note

Per your note on your userpage... I sympathize entirely. It lightens my mood a bit to see someone else as frustrated with the project as I am. --DanielCD 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Note: User is referring to this revision, and removed this note after I changed my User page recently to the current version.

Thanks. I replaced your comment noting that you weren't referring to my current User page and don't intend to appear to endorse it. I hope you don't mind my restoring your original comment though. Thanks, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's neither endorsing it or not endorsing it. I don't even know what it means. What is "the Cabal" (as it relates to this userbox/Wikipedia)? --DanielCD 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your note here, it must have come in with some other comments and I didn't see it. If you don't know what the term Cabal refers to, it's a running "joke" on Wikipedia, except that despite protestations to the contrary, there is a Cabal, it is active, and I am opposed to their actions. I'm not here to name names, otherwise the word Cabal on my User page would be linked to those I feel are a part of it, but I don't want to cross over into NPA-world, so the Userbox says what it says, and I do what I do, and I use my mop if I find something that needs to be mopped up while I do what I do, but otherwise, I stay the fuck out of it as much as I can. You might say I've turned into the Wiki equivalent of an irascible old Hermit. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's block

I just wanted to let you know so there isn't the perception that we're talking behind your back, but some of us find your block of Karmafist out of line. Johnleemk | Talk 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And some of us might not think so. --HappyCamper 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix

As you know, the reward for doing good work on Wikipedia is .... more work! As Phoenix is now a disambiguation page, it gives me great and perverse joy to assign you and Deathphoenix the joint task of clearing the disambig links to that page, and keeping it link free. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As you know, Wikipedia is entirely.....volunteer!!!!! As I am still recovering from a WikiBreak, and still profoundly frustrated at the activities of the Cabal, I am highly minimising my Wiki-activities to those things I am profoundly interested in, and it gives me little joy to unequivocally refuse your assignment, despite my tremendous respect for you as a quality Wikipedian. Additionally, I don't think Phoenix should be a disambiguation, I think it should be about the mythological creature, with a link to Phoenix (disambiguation) as the disambig page. Again, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do that. Also, it might be better not to use such terms as assign, I know you meant it in jest but asshats like me can still get peevish at times. My apologies and best regards to you, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not watching AN/I, so if you happen to be wandering in from there to complain or comment, know that I'm staying away. If I see two people engaged in edit warring, I think that's disruptive and destructive, and I'll throw down an equal sided block on both parties in a heartbeat. I'm trying to minimise my involvement in Teh Dramah, so I don't watch AN/A, RfC, or God forbid get on IRC. But I still have a mop and I'm not afraid to use it. Cheers, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You blocked Guanaco when he was responding to an AN/I

Please unblock him immediately. MarkSweep's edits were a mass blanking campaign wholly unsanctioned by policy. Guanco is doing his job! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkSweep.

StrangerInParadise 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding my voice to ask you to unblock Guanaco (he did nothing wrong in my opinion), even if only to reply to AN/I. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:21 UTC (2006-03-04)

I don't wish to wheel war you and get into an argument in the future over this block/possible unblock, so please unblock him. Otherwise, I will have no choice but do so. All he did was revert disruptive blanking. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:28 UTC (2006-03-04)

I don't think it's a wheel war if you unblock him, but if I were to re-block him then it would be a wheel war, as I comment on below. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Friday has done so, and saved me the need of doing it. Please realise that this is a difficult situation, and your blocks may just make it worse. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:32 UTC (2006-03-04)

No offense, but I felt it was the right thing to do. See the appropriate discussion on AN/I if you care to. Friday (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there's a lot of concerns lately on Wikipedia about not wanting to risk wheel warring with other Admins. I think that's a good and respectable thing, and I appreciate the courtesy you have shown in not wanting to undo my block without discussing it with me first. However, in my mind, it's not a wheel war to simply undo another Admins's actions, no more than it's an edit war if somebody reverts my edits. If I were to turn around and re-block Guanaco after Friday unblocked him, that would be starting a wheel war, and that type of action I have a huge problem with. However, Admin actions are reversible by other Admins for a reason. Please don't forget that. It's part of what it means to be a Wiki. What courtesy on Wikipedia should be for Admins is the same for edits...don't get in an edit war, but discuss the issue and strive for consensus. If someone reverts my edits, ok, if I feel strongly about what I think it should say, let's discuss it. If someone undoes an Admin action of mine, ok, if I feel strongly about it let's discuss it, but know that A. I'm not going to be offended by it and B. I'm not going to re-block someone or stuff like that. That's just stupid, and that's what we all need to work against happening. Now, if Guanaco was in the right, and defending policy, fabulous. I blocked them both because what I saw was an edit war. I saw Guanaco and MarkSweep going back and forth. It would have been better for someone else to revert MarkSweep, rather than edit war himself. That's why I placed the block. I have no problem with Friday unblocking him, I know and trust Friday's judgement, and yours too NSLE. I may not be able to make you as comfortable as I think you should be with reverting other Admins actions, but know that with me, I assure you you are welcome to revert my actions, as I believe you have the power to do so for a reason. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. FWIW, I agree with you entirely on wheel warring- yes it's bad, but someone undoing something ONCE is not a wheel war. That's a sensible and mature attitude. Friday (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between Guanaco and MarkSweep. You are being named as an involved party. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott Fisher sock?

It seems almost too obvious, but isn't SCOTT FISHER (talk · contribs) a sock of Scottfisher (talk · contribs)? And therefore shouldn't be editing? --Calton | Talk 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Cood catch, if you find any others feel free to block on sight. He insists on continuing to try and edit Wikipedia and upload images, despite having violated copyright multiple times. It's unacceptable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

- Gee, that looks like fun...--PabloMartinez 20:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)