Jump to content

User talk:Phoenix of9/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello Phoenix of9, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your new articles

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I came upon your new articles about the Nebula Award nominated books. I put tags on the article requested their expansion and editing to fit Wikipedia requirements. If you need help in this endeavour, please feel free to call on me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Homosexuality

Regarding the topic "homophobia" and suggestions for being inclusive to people referencing the article on "Homosexuality":

1. "Homophobia" and "Homosexuality in Animals" have their own articles entirely. To avoid unnecessary duplication and congestion and non-topicality, simply place cross-references and links within the "Homosexuality" article so interested parties can move to those articles. For any experienced computer user or Wikipedia user, such cross-navigation is easy and quick and also provides more substantial and effective treatments of the related topics in their proper encyclopedic location or place. (Some of those cross-links have already been placed in the article in question.)

2. Further, if in fact what you claim is true, then the proper location for that information is, in fact, under "homophobia" or a "homophobia" subsection--NOT under an "Animal Sexuality" subsection--when the article is totally focused on Human Sexuality or its variants.

3. As you can see easily under many topics in Wikipedia, appropriate treatment in sub-sections of articles is almost NEVER preferential to full and appropriate treatment in the main article itself--and it is easy to cross-link and cross-reference (as stated above). Thanks! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, I have reviewed the article and find absolutely no references to "homosexuality in animals" in the Wikipedia article (or and linked articles) under or with any "homophobia" sub-sections or passages. Please clarify that reference. Thanks! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --VS talk 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the LGBT WikiProject!

Hi, Phoenix of9, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification.
  • Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
  • If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Noting that someones opinion is "irrelevant" is not the way to maintain friendly debate on an issue. Surely you can do better? Kevin (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chindi (novel)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chindi (novel), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sfreviews.net/chindi.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of SOSLynx

A tag has been placed on SOSLynx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DARTH PANDAduel • work 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT template photo

Thanks! The new photo image is great. The old, crappy photo was put their by someone to replace a perfectly good symbol. Anyway, this little thing makes a world of a difference. --83.231.103.116 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL I agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Show Me Love

Hey. A note to say I'm not trying to be difficult here, but the former Lesbian article used shady sourcing culled from very quick Google searches, and lists or unrelated sentences somehow fused together in incoherent paragraphs. I'm trying to do something more with this article. First, I'd like to use the best sources available anywhere. This means editorial-reviewed books over web sources like afterellen.com or curvemag.com. imdb.com and amazon.com are not sufficient sources to verify that the material is lesbian (I saw the film, so I know it is, but bear with me here for a moment). Both imdb.com and amazon.com are user-generated sites, very much like wikis. Instead, a source should state that Fucking Amal is considered part of a milestone in portrayals of lesbianism. I would like a book to say it. I have more work to do on the article. I won't forget it, I promise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 on Rick Warren page

Hi Phoenix of9. In hopes of facilitating consensus on the matter of how best to refer to California Prop 8 on the Rick Warren page, I wrote up a framework of seven points that I *think* interested editors agree on, and three points that I *think* interested editors disagree on, and put it on the discussion page. I'm hoping you'll return to that page and provide your input. Thanks.... Benccc (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, Phoenix of9, thank you for all the efforts you have been making on these articles, i appreciate that you have asked for mediation and are doing good work to bring (hopefully more) objective eyeballs to the discussion. I'm sorry to say that i have become so fatigued with the whole debacle, i just can't find a good way to participate there anymore. I was going to write a reply to the mediator on the Talk:Rick Warren page, because i feel they have not addressed some primary issues (COI, censorship and whitewashing, etc) and i also feel they are noting complete irrelevant issues (i.e., whether or not any editors are "pro-gay-rights", which seems like a strange thing on which the mediator would comment, as they seem to be focusing on the editors rather than the edits.) But i just don't want to say anything further on those Rick Warren or SaddleBack Church pages because i just don't know how to contain my ire and indignation, and i'm afraid i will just "fan the flames" even more if i open my mouth again. I want to be supportive of you and any other editors who are attempting neutral objectivity and reliably sourced citations, but i'm sorry if i don't seem very helpful. Maybe the only way i can "help" is to avoid doing any harm to the principles of neutrality and civility. So i came here to your TalkPage to basically say i'm taking a bit of a wiki-break to keep out of trouble, and i am just ever so grateful that you and other editors have the energy to keep on pressing in the uphill struggle for fairness and ethical wikipedia activity. Thank you for being so productive, maybe at some future date i can find better ways to be involved, i am just glad there are people like you who are willing to spend the time and effort even when others of us grow so weary. Best wishes, Teledildonix314 Talk ~ 4-1-1 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Damn. I guess we could just repeat my whole spiel from 23 February 2009. I'm going to chill out, before my head explodes into flames, i don't think i can handle that Mediation TalkPage right at this moment without expressing anger, and that won't help anybody, especially reasonable people like you, so i'll see you later after i cool down. Thanks for being a model of good patience. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ Talk ~ 4-1-1 ~ 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of other editors opinions

Your characterization of Lyonscc's opinion as "irrelevant" is out of order. I have warned you about this before, and I will not issue a further warning. Kevin (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Altered proposal

I think it will confuse things if you change proposed wordings that others have already supported, as it becomes unclear exactly what they supported. Perhaps you should add a 4th proposal. Re the proposal itself, I think that the second sentence should expand on the first and explain the reason for the criticism at least a little. Kevin (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Careful please

You are quite rightly taking part in the Rick Warren mediation. It is important that your considered views are included so I would ask again that you please remember the previous advice given, including that from Kevin detailed above in the threads marked "Civility"/"Your characterization of other editors opinions" and not again say anything that could be considered a disparaging reference to the other editors.--VS talk 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stow the wikitalk

If you have something to say, say it in plain English.

"Strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." Haiduc (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And...This supports your addition how? Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I think our disagreement stems from the fact that you are using a statement referring to orientation in a way that incorrectly makes it seem applicable to homosexuality in general. Haiduc (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Orientation and behaviour are related closely. Also note that Homosexual orientation will be merged. I moved your stuff to history section. Give me like a week b4 making more changes. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I just like to keep things operating smoothly. :) No worries, and best of luck with the new tool! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

cookies for your great work

Thanks for mopping up my userpage after the latest visitor's muddy footprints! Here are some tasty cookies you deserve for all your cleanup efforts. It's especially good to see your edits tidying big LGBT_portal pages. Good luck, have a good week, and enjoy more frosted treats!





Mediation

Thanks for your continued good work on the mediation. Sunray (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of NRW

As I see it, neither alternative for that link is truly acceptable - the section of the river bears little relevance to a political area with a merely similar name (admittedly named after the same thing); whereas the only political area on which Wikipedia has information, is, as you correctly point out, a subset of the true area. We have a choice here - have a poor, (largely) irrelevant link or none at all. Both options don't actually add anything, IMO, to the enjoyment of the page. Do you have another view? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, leave the link in coat of arms article and improve Rhine article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that Rhineland might actually be the best. If you compare these two maps:


it seems that the area Niederrhein is equivalent to Rhineland as now is. In my mind, that's the perfect political entity, because that makes there three distinct political areas - Rhineland, Westfalen/phalia and Lippe which match up with the current arms. Also the Rhine province used the same vert a bend wavy argent arms as here:

I can't find the arms of the state of Grand Duchy of the Lower Rhine, but one is left to assume the arms of the Rhine Province became the basis for North-Rhine Westphalia; for 'in 1946, the Rhine Province was divided up between the newly-founded states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate', so this leaves two options: use the area Rhineland as the area represented by that 'third' of the arms, or make it clear that it was the areas coming from the former state of Rhine Province that led to that third. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've found my book of flags which states that 'The colours of the flag are taken from the arms which combine the symbols of the three parts of the state which are Rhineland (river), Westphalia (horse) and Lippe (rose)' so I definitely think the link should be to the Rhineland page. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR analysis

[copied from User talk:Dynaflow]

Btw, are you sure that wasnt a violation of 1rr? Because his edits were consecutive? If it isnt a 1rr violation, I'll have to delete it from his RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this systematically. The common understanding of WP:3RR I've seen in action as a Wikipedian cultural norm varies slightly from the "letter of the law" as it's written on the 3RR policy page. Specifically, with the recognition that making major changes to an established page (per WP:BOLD) will almost invariably involve "undoing" some of the work of others, somewhat of a pass is given to initial edits in a particular burst of editing unless they are blindingly obvious undoings of the contributions immediately prior to theirs (it's also a huge pain in the ass to hunt down the origins of what an initial edit may or may not have undone). At the first edit in this series, Collect had not touched the article since 9 March and had not made a substantial change since 8 March. Meanwhile several others were editing heavily. I would consider the deck sufficiently shuffled to consider the first edit on 12 March as a start from 0.

  • Collect (15:06, 12 March) Pass.
  • Others Someone rewrites the intro.
  • Collect Collect re-rewrites the intro; however, he does not return it to how it was when he last edited. Instead he changes it, apparently building on previous revisions. This is not reversion but evolution, the process through which articles mature during periods of heavy editing.
  • Others Collect is substantially reverted.
  • Collect Collect adds {{sectOR}} tags to three sections and takes out two images.
  • Others Collect is completely reverted.
  • Collect (15:25, 13 March) Collect partially reverts the reversion. 1RR.

This does not appear to have been a 3RR situation. --Dynaflow babble 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

not "Wiki"

Not meant at all otherwise as a comment or take on what you have to say, wiki is a kind of software, this project is called Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be my education in "socialist/fascist" government school (!) or whatever that was. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Very likely so. If you have (or ever have) kids please think about homeschooling ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh btw, I'm from Lower Saxony (Northern Europe), I'm not related to any of Central/Western/Other Europeans and I think Charlemagne was a moron.
And if you have kids, please think about sending them to school so they can have a decent social life. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Lower Saxony? You're most likely related and one of your g.g.g.g...grand-dads was a... (mine too). No need to go on about it, but healthier social lives can be found for kids outside of state and state-sanctioned schools. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy there

The RFC on Collect makes it easy to get annoyed. But I think we'll both do better to keep things cool and calm.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Over-flavoring your comments with too much venom weakens their effect. Too much spice in the stew ruins the pot for all!--Buster7 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My concerns

Alright, I seem to be having trouble with this on the RfC so I'll try be a little more specific in my concerns (this isn't meant as sarcasm, I'll admit I can be a little vague). What I mean is you are asking for things such as the Drudge ban w/o talking to those involved to see if they agree or disagree that it is really necessary. You are passing judgement in one area w/o first seeking out whether those who are actually taking part think it would help rather than hurt. As for Fascism, the user in question was inserting material against concensus and has since been reverted by other editors, I think Collect just jumped the gun a bit on this one. Soxwon (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Collect's behaviour is not isolated to those 2 articles and those 2 instances. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but I think my concerns with the DR topic ban is valid. Perhaps you could talk to those invovled? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If those in DR think it's unnecessary, I'll drop my 6 month topic ban suggestion. But 1rr for 18 months still stands. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, that addresses one of my main concerns. I guess we can just agree to disagree on Fascism. Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi there. Please avoid repeatedly referring to various policy/guideline/essays - that's what the section "applicable policies and guidelines" exists for. On another note, as you are aware, users certifying the basis of the dispute are requested to provide diffs showing that they tried to resolve a dispute, and failed to do so. I've tried to fix the formatting so that it is consistent across RfCs in general; if you can provide diffs of certifiers trying and failing to resolve the dispute, then there are no issues with the filing of this RfC. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin, and anyone can move it to approved if it has been certified - somehow, the sections regarding trying and failing to resolve the dispute were omitted in the template (perhaps when it was moved), so this has been restored. Diffs are always preferrable, especially if the RfC is looked at later down the track by the community or ArbCom. Diffs of what you said/did (whether it was on user talk page, article talk page, edit summary) in trying to resolve the dispute, and diffs of what the other user said/did in making that attempt a failure is what is needed here, and will resolve the issue. Admins will generally come to RfC when a deletion is requested due to the RfC being uncertified, for example. Does that help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC

I think Collect believes your examples of effort to work out disputes are all mine because you didn't sign it. He'll certainly make an issue of it you don't make it clear which parts are yours vs. mine. You should probably go back there since it's only a matter of time before we get a paragraph or two about it from him which will only confuse issues more. Mattnad (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Ending RFC - perhaps we might have a good catalog of examples, but Collect is benefiting from [WP:AGF] which gives the edge to gamers. By working on the margins of acceptable behavior, he'll remain free to do what he wants. Mattnad (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxon steed

I did actually read your reasoning re the move and had looked at that German page before making the move; I still believe it it better served on an individual page - the fact that the de.wikipedia.org choose to have it that way is their business - and there are significant differences between the pages in terms of content and scope.An individual page, on the other hand, creates consistency across the page spectrum, while Saxon steed could continue to show the use of the horse as an icon, along with the general thoughts behind it. I was not suggesting that the Saxon steed page need to be removed or anything close, but the information specifically about the coat of arms of Lower Saxony should be presented in individual page format with an infobox. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand German? The coat of arms of Lower Saxony is the Saxon Steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a piece of German that actually says that. There are things like Heute ist es das Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen which is the other way round - the Saxon steed is the coat of arms of Lower Saxony; this doesn't mean they are synonomous. There are other aspects to both parts, such as the issue date and armiger of the arms of Lower Saxony, which aren't relevant to the iconography of the Steed as a whole, and there are aspects of the steed, such as its use in Kent, which aren't relevant to any coat of arms section. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I can see you argument better- give me a second to think :) Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Also note that saxon steed has been the symbol of saxon people. And Lower Saxony is the home of Saxons. (ie: it isnt Saxony) Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm sorry, but you've failed to sway me over this point. The German Law actually (unlike the article) says „Niedersachsen führt als Wappen das weiße Roß im roten Felde.“ which says about a white horse on a red field, which, while it is clearly an allusion to the Sachenross, doesn't actually say that it is. In other words, the coat of arms of Lower Saxony isn't the Sachenross, it's a red field with a white horse that happens to be exactly the same. They both, therefore, require articles. maybe a CoA page saying that it displays the Sachenross, with an extract and {{main template to Saxon steed? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Look the german article is FA. So I think yea, this wikipedia should do like it does. "Heute ist es das Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen". And if you need a further source:
"Peter Veddeler: Das Niedersachsenross, Geschichte des niedersächsischen Landeswappens. Hannover 1996" Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced they are better served as a single article. The German Saxon steed article is nothing like the one on the English Wikipedia in terms of scope, and, as I pointed out above, the quotation we both used from the German text does not necessarily mean they are synonymous. Clearly there's an interesting history behind the Saxon steed, and that this is reflect on the coat of arms. But the Law makes no mention of this fact, and this is one reason why, just like we have articles on other charges, such as the fleur-de-lis, or similar charges, this ought to be the case with the Saxon steed.
Your source for the law? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think you used this: [1] Did you read all of the article? "Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen ist das springende weiße Ross im roten Felde." (The part you quoted) Then: "Es blickt auf eine Geschichte von über 600 Jahren zurück" and goes on about saxon steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that source. It says that Lower Saxony uses a white horse on a red dield, and that has a long history. All true. All I'm saying is that the additional functuanality of a separate page is better for the viewer. I know that it shows the Sachenross, but that it shows the Sachenross, but that the two things are separate. For example, the Sachenross appears on the inescutcheon of Han[n]over, but here it isn't the arms of Lower Saxony, it's something different. Here, they are not two names for the same thing, and hence, on English Wikipedia, they deserve separate pages, no doubt linked. I cannot see how this would have a negative effect on the reader. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)My idiotic [unnamed other user at this IP] left it signed in, and I failed to notice because everything else's the same. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The Law's from the German article: Die neue „Niedersächsische Verfassung“ vom 19. Mai 1993 übernahm die Regelung und sagt in Artikel 1, Satz (3) aus: „Niedersachsen führt als Wappen das weiße Roß im roten Felde und in der Flagge die Farben Schwarz-Rot-Gold mit dem Landeswappen.“ in full. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
weiße Roß = Sachsenroß = Saxon steed. See this is for kids but its official: "Als das Land Niedersachsen 1946 gegründet wurde, übernahm der damalige Ministerpräsident Hinrich Wilhelm Kopf das Sachsenross mit der ehemaligen Hannoverschen Provinzialflagge als Hausflagge der Staatskanz'ei (Weißes Ross auf rotem Flaggentuch)." [2] Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Even with weiße Roß = Sachsenroß, there is still the red field to account for, and hence the Sachenross is simply the charge on the coat of arms. I will draft a two-page solution in my userspace, if you want to amend it, I will; if you still think that the entire page is unwarranted, we'll put it to the WP:HV or any other group of people. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) OK, it's at User:Grandiose2/Coat of arms of Lower Saxony. The main Saxon Steed page would only have to be reworded slightly. Your thoughts? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I made my points. Asking for a 3rd opinion seems the way to go. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine. I will message WP:HV, referencing this convo. Feel free to ask anyone you want to. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Not again! Don't worry, Jarry1250 will not have any views for the purpose of this discussion because of the fraternal relationship. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Also note that Saxon steed has been the symbol of area of Lower Saxony for a long time. Its latest usage (coat of arms) is just continuation of that history. So I dont understand why you dont want all the info in COA of Lower Saxony under Saxon steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand that it's a historic symbol. But I think the information's better served as two pages. For example, Wikipedia could have one page on English history, but instead it is better to have Sub-Roman Britain, Roman Britain etc, they could be considered separate topics. I think it should be taken the other way round: why shouldn't we have a page called coat of arms of Lower Saxony, since we have 'Coat of arms of' for other states. There's enough material and it's a separate subject. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Because it serves the readers better when they are a single article. Neither article is long. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That map

Image:Gay_military.svg? Wouldn't it make sense to simply ask the creator for the sources used or is there something else? -- Banjeboi 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He doesnt seem active. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem, it was pretty but not "overnight" pretty! -- Banjeboi 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lower Saxony

Well I'm glad we've come to an agreement (I mean that) and I'd (by which I mean Wikipedia) love your input. I'll try to find out or translate as new info as possible because no-one wants to see short articles. Sorry I didn't see your talk earlier. :) Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandiose (talk • contribs)

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

- dicussion breeds improvement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

apology

I apologize for any editwars I may have had with you. I shall continue to endeavour to avoid them. Collect (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You are not a neutral admin. You had also closed my ANI complaint. Enough. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
You're mistaken. Don't do that again. As I said in the close, you can appeal it at WP:AN. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've read Gwen's warning to Collect. I'm not sure what else concerned editors might want. Collect is free to edit cooperative and constructively unless he does any of the things that create conflict. If there's a verifiable violation of the terms, Gwen will block him. I think this is more than enough for me (and I've had my share of skirmishes with Collect). It's a given that Gwen has previous interaction with Collect, but that does not mean she's not working towards the betterment of the Wikipedia project. It's sometimes difficult to let go, but this may be one of those times. Mattnad (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.
Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".
Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.
Please take a look: here.
Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Please . . .

Phoenix, I know you do good work here and are capable of introspection, so I hope you'll take this in the right spirit. Edit summaries such as "Scheinwerfermann hasnt even read all of this article. Until he does so, he is unfit to make big revisions in the lead" and sarcastic questions like "Can you not read?" are less than civil. Throughout the process of reformulating the lede, Scheinwerfermann has worked collaboratively and civilly, and so have all of the rest of us until today. I can tell you from personal experience (off-wiki and on-) that your arguments are far more likely to be persuasive when they're made calmly and respectfully, without denigrating the ones you're trying to persuade. We all have the same objective, right? It can be a pleasant journey getting there or an unpleasant one—our choice. (Btw, you are editing against consensus right now. I'm not keeping track for 3RR purposes, but please do not revert again). Rivertorch (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please talk only about sources and article text, not other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello, Phoenix of9. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here. 00:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Would you like your talk page archiving? :) --ScythreTalkContribs 13:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Hey Phoenix of 9! Welcome back! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Phoenix of9. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Homosexuality GA

I saw User_talk:Moni3/Archive_15#Homosexuality this, and I'd like to help (you coulda asked me directly! :)) Who are the 6 other people that signed up for it? CTJF83 chat 20:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should of asked you :)
Here: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive_19#Rewrite_agenda + me Phoenix of9 22:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
So is this a go then, or did it kind of fall through? I'd be willing to help. CTJF83 chat 04:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Forum shopping

Knock it off right now and I'm blocking you for harassment and disruption. You got a response, deal with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response was this: "Phoenix, you note that he broke them in July and want to report that now? You've asked an admin here, you're done. Frankly, I don't see why you shouldn't be stopped for harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)"
I was talking about what happened yesterday. If you cant read diffs, thats not my problem. Deal with it. Phoenix of9 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Last warning. You've complained here and here. You don't get to keep complaining until you get what you want. I don't care about who's right or who's wrong on the blocking issue, you are being disruptive in your complaining now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are being disruptive in how you deal with this. I moved to ANI because Gwen refused to. She was a non-neutral admin. It seems that you are involved in Mass killings under Communist regimes as well. Phoenix of9 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If your issue is Gwen's conduct, say that at ANI. A discussion of an admin's decision is perfectly fine. Complaining because two other admins didn't do what you want is not. Your failure to mention the other admins is what really boils me. As to my competency, you exact words here were: "he had already broken his RFC restrictions" with a link to this July 2009 comment by Gwen. Am I supposed to know that you actually meant he broke them recently and that diff was just for show or something? Your other links [3][4][5] are not edits by Collect. I'm not psychic and if you want someone to do something, spend at least a minute being clear what was done that's problematic. Saying "he has a restriction and somewhere in his edits is a violation" has a very strong likelihood of being ignored. I see at User_talk:Collect#January_2010 that User:Tiptoety already dealt with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And what in the world does Mass killings under Communist regimes have to do with anything? I don't see a single edit of yours there at all. Are you complaining about edits done by an editor that don't effect you at all? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And what boils me is your inability to understand this. [6]. It says January 2010 in the diff, and its clearly a diff showing that Collect was blocked. You dont have to be a psychic for understanding that.
Another thing that boils me is your inability to understand Collect was blocked due to disruptive editing in Mass killings under Communist regimes, an article you are involved in content disputes. And then I make a complaint about Collect's behaviour in that article (following up his RFC) and then you threaten to block me.
I messaged Tiptoety cause I figured he wasnt aware of Collect's past. Then I messaged Gwen Gale, then made the ANI report when she refused. How is this forum shopping? Phoenix of9 00:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm dropping this back to ANI here before I do something I'll regret out of anger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This . . .

...encyclopedia, as the esteemed Malleus Fatuorum observes from time to time, appears to be largely policed by juveniles. Some of them, like an intercom with a stuck button (and also just like some cops in the "real" world), appear to be on TO (transmit only). IMHO it's futile trying to persuade anyone on TO to listen. Here endeth my thought for the day :~) Writegeist (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cchat

Hello, please it is possible to chat with you over jabber/msn/icq or something like that? I'd like to clarify some things to you, Phoenix. I would be very glad we could discuss our contributions and further development. Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You can email me. Phoenix of9 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

Fyi you are mentioned, indeed featured in a section heading, here [7] by Soxwon, who appears to take exception to her friend's behaviour being investigated. Perhaps she would eventually have had the courtesy to inform you, but you might prefer to know sooner than later. Writegeist (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I really need to clean off my watchlist, but I'm a guy FYI. It's Collect's decision whether or not he or she takes actions, I'm not sure why the hell I'm obligated to contact Phoenix of9 about advice I offered Collect. And btw, the fact that your "investigating" Collect's edits is indeed troublesome, as the last time this happened your "evidence" was incredibly flawed if not downright dishonest. If you feel the need to investigate situations that don't involve you b/c you have an ax to grind (as there seems to be no other reason you would report an editor you haven't interacted with for God know's how long) fine, but really your just wasting your time and harassing Collect. Soxwon (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You're not obliged to contact Phoenix and I didn't say you were. I simply did it for you. A guy, you say? Your post puts me in mind of a little girl stamping her little foot. Writegeist (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Soxwon, whatever.
Writegeist, Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Phoenix of9 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there --Destinero (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please write your opinion on the issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paraphilia#Homosexuality_2 I need to compare my opinions with others. :-) Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

HIV

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on HIV. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down.

The "Why does the article omit that AIDS results from immoral behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and drug use?" comment thing is a FAQ; the admin himself is not stating the question, it is one frequently posted on the talk page there, and there is an answer to it in a collapsible box. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for another example. The admin posted the question, and something countering. You're jumping the gun and getting angry, disruptive and nasty over something that hasn't been done. Zazaban (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree strongly, please just wait for the admin to come back online and talk it out with you on their talk page. Bringing it to Jimbo's talk page was a mistake on your part and you should stop commenting over there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In answer to your question at User talk:Jimbo Wales#What is the procedure to follow with openly homophobic administrators in English Wikipedia: the process is outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In this case, best practice would have been to address yourself to the editor in question (me) first and foremost, raising your concerns and the reasons for them. Simple misunderstandings are best handled simply. Had you actually identified an editor advocating homophobia, it would have been appropriate to initiate a Request for comment or a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Speaking purely for myself, I would have appreciated it had your initial approach been something along the lines of: == Talk:HIV/FAQ == Your edit here to Q3 appears to support homophobia. This is unacceptable, as the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy requires that editors leave their personal biases and prejudices behind when they edit the encyclopedia. It also contravenes the Talk page guidelines, as casting the question in such terms can make other editors feel unwelcome. I have removed the question for now and raised the matter for discussion at Talk:HIV#FAQ Q3. Your input is welcome, but please keep in mind that the purpose of that page is to promote constructive discussion of improvements to the encyclopedia article HIV. This clearly outlines your concerns, provides a basis in policy for change, conveys the strength of your outrage at your reading of my edit, provides a venue for productive discussion and improvement, and assumes good faith. Such an approach would also have saved you and me both the headache of reading those discussions. Incidentally, I replied over at my talkpage and initiated a discussion at Talk:HIV#FAQ Q3. I think I like the current wording as of this post, but your further input is welcome. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was frustrated with HIV article (still am). So seeing the FAQ in addition to that pissed me off. I apologize. I do not like the current wording as it implies that "AIDS epidemic is a result of behaviours such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and drug use". So it asks, why doesnt the article emphasize that? Problems with this:
1) Its an incorrect a priori assumption.
2) It compares homosexuality and bisexuality with drug use.
3) It reduces something as complex as sexual orientation to just behaviour. Phoenix of9 19:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I can understand that, but thank you for the apology; I appreciate it. Current for the above two posts refers to two different versions of the question - ah well, such is life on a wiki. By the way - the software will autonumber for you if you start a line with #. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
To clarify further, what really frustrates me is how the HIV transmission risks table plays down the risks. Given wiki's popularity and given the fact that complacency is a big problem [8] [9], the continuing refusal of editors to fix the problem is quite annoying. Phoenix of9 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

If you pursue this any further, I'm going to block you. You've made disparaging comments about another editor and it simply isn't on. Go edit elsewhere until you've calmed down. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: HIV risk table

Thanks for editing the table. No, I'm not homophobic; I've reverted vandalism to Gok Wan many times and if you read my last response carefully, you'll see that I've not rejected the 2010 article. I can only echo what others have already said – you seem frustrated at the moment, and I would respectfully ask you to come back tomorrow with a clear head before commenting at Talk:HIV further. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way

You might want to read Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint

See the result of WP:AN3#User:Phoenix of9 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: Warned). You are warned against making large changes to the article that lack support on the talk page. Anyone desiring a large change in a controversial article is expected to get consensus for it. If a deadlock is reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Any further revert that has no support from others may lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

By unilaterally revoking the GA status at Talk:HIV, you are tempting fate. Please note the mention of 'sanctions' above. Try to persuade others to support your views. Take a look at the page on WP:Disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I followed the steps in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment actually. Phoenix of9 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Warning

I see you've been busy irritating other people recently, so I'll be blunt: knock it off or you will be blocked.

If you want to collaborate on how to best improve NARTH, or any other article, then by all means, let's have a dialogue. If you are interested in templating me for making a good faith improvement to the article, you will be blocked. Do I make myself clear? Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling on my page. WP:LEAD should be a "concise overview of the article". If you want to improve NARTH, I'm fine with that obviously. If you are interested in making stupid threats, you will be reported. Phoenix of9 03:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Could you please contribute with your opinion to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ Thank you! --Destinero (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix9, I believe you are bordering on vandalism by reverting every single change I've made to the SSM page and justifying the reverts based on your expressed concerns about 1 source. Why not just delete that source? Or ask me to find a better one? Also, have you taken the time to delete any unsourced material that might be present in the article? I am trying to assume good faith here. Please help me out.184.74.22.161 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That source is not the only problem, I spelled out bunch of others. Phoenix of9 17:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You are already familiar with 3rr, so I shouldn't have to warn you that you are at 3 revisions on SSM. Do not continue to edit war with the IP user. Thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Further to this, the IP appears to be trying to work with you and has been receptive to concerns raised on their talk page. I would suggest that you continue to express any concerns you might have, but please avoid simply removing the material if it can be improved instead. --Ckatzchatspy 21:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your recent changes as the sources you removed appear to be valid. The NYT article does mention what it references, and the Biblical verse mentions are supported by the references in the following sentences, which draw upon them. More to the point, however, I would ask that you spend more time discussing proposed changes on the talk page based on the responses you have received from your AN/I and other posts. Thank you in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 00:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the Biblical material in the next reference. Can you attribute it to that sect only? Or do all 15 or so references use those verses? If you are going to re-add the material, please do the work.
And the NYT article refers to language of a ballot measure, not to a religious position. Again, if you are going to re-add the material, please do the work. Phoenix of9 00:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Leviticus reference

Hi Phoenix, just mentioning the reference is not in itself an incitement to violence. The situation in places such as Uganda notwithstanding, just mentioning the passage in the context of "some people believe... based upon such and such in the Bible..." is potentially good editing. It is not saying "hey, all you people, go kill some gays". There is a real and major difference there that I think you either need to see, or else just step back from the article (and noticeboards). (Whether or not the passage is relevant to the SSM article is another question, but one that belongs on the article talk page.) LadyofShalott 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ "The situation in places such as Uganda notwithstanding". You lost me after there. Phoenix of9 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... was my language unclear, or do you just disagree with me? LadyofShalott 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this will help. These are very different statements:
1)The Bible contains a certain passage (Leviticus whatever verse).
2)People should follow the instructions given in Leviticus (whatever verse).
Does that make it any clearer? LadyofShalott 17:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to What You Posted on My Talk Page

Phoenix_of9, it appears that even a rebuke from the founder of Wikipedia has not gotten through to you.

First of all, contrary to your comments, my edits to the Same-Sex Marriage and the Family article you referenced were fully and appropriately sourced.

Second of all, I totally disagree with your assertion that NARTH is a fringe organization.

Third, it is not inappropriate at all to cite to organizations that oppose LGBT parenting for data on the positions held by organizations that oppose LGBT parenting, or for data on the reasons given by those organizations for their position. In fact, it is perfectly appropriate. NARTH is a primary source for such information. I did not cite NARTH for the position held by the mainstream social science community, but for the position of those who oppose LGBT parenting. This information is important to provide balance in the article.

Fourth, your decision to label the Family Research Council--a nationally-known entity that may well be the foremost Christian advocacy organization in the United States--as a fringe group and a "hate" group is, quite simply, off the wall. If you want to waste your time and get batted down by an administrator, please feel free to go ahead and argue that point. The fact that you do not like an organization does not make it a fringe organization or a hate group. It's just absurd of you to make that claim here.

Fifth, if you have legitimate edits or concerns, I welcome them and will attempt to address them--as I have done. However, I see your latest "warning"--along with the accusation of hate speech and the rest of the nonsense you've tried to pull over the last few days--as nothing more than an effort to intimidate. That type of stuff just doesn't work with me--and it is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. In case you need clarification on that, feel free to revisit Jimmy Wales' comments to you.

Thanks.184.74.22.161 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm trying to intimidate you, you should contact an administrator or bring it up at WP:ANI.
FRC is a hate group, as defined by Southern Poverty Law Center [10].
As for NARTH, by giving up so much space to those fringe organizations (and yes they are fringe), you are violating WP:UNDUE Phoenix of9 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. The Southern Poverty Law Center said it, so it must be true. I will give you that you at least have some basis for this absurd claim, but that does not make it any less absurd. As to the WP:UNDUE claim, I disagree completely.184.74.22.161 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Template:Discrimination sidebar. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Phoenix of9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Weird. The admin blocked me instead of the other person. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Rainbowofpeace_reported_by_User:Phoenix_of9_.28Result:_24h.29 Ie: I do not have a 4th revert in 24 hours.Phoenix of9 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is still edit-warring whether or not you break the WP:3RR line (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I blocked you both. You're both over the 3RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Haven't you heard of WP:BOOMERANG ? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Which one is the fourth one? Phoenix of9 00:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is the 6th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Discrimination_sidebar&action=historysubmit&diff=400578972&oldid=400578371
At any rate; it's only 24 hours. It's not as bad as most edit warring blocks which are closer to 72. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

I wish to apologize for the editing war. I'm not saying you were correct but my behaviour was terrible. I'm glad you are no longer blocked. You seem like you really care about the LGBT community and as a gay man I thank you for that. My statements were not personal but sociological facts and categorization. Anyway I really respect you as an editor and I'm happy to have discussed with you.Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Rainbowofpeace

Your edits on that page are not helpful. You seem to dump everything (like sexualism) into the sidebar, making it look ineffective and ridiculous. Phoenix of9 01:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
If we get rid of sexualism there will be no article about general discrimination againist people based on sexual orientation whats more I have posted links in the discussion on pages using the word sexualism. If there are others you want me to take down tell me which ones they are and I will honestly look them over.

http://sexualism.tribe.net/ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexualism http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Sexualism Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed Anti-communism, Anti-masonry from the social specific forms as well as bride burning, child abuse, child neglect, coporal punishment, curfew, domestic violence, dowry death, honor killing, human trafficking, rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual slavery, and sexual violence as these are not always related to sexism or ageism ex. a man can rape a man making rape not a manifestation of sexism in all cases. I had originally added all these but you got me thinking about how to improve my article hoarding thank you for all your help. If you have any more suggestions put in on this page or my talk page.Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? You are using urban dictionary as a source? Really? Do you really think you are helping Wikipedia? Phoenix of9 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the other two sources? It's seems like you just want to attack me. Did you even look at the other two sources?76.121.251.142 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology to user Collect for filing 2009 RfC/U about him?

Hi, Phoenix. I do NOT want you to join in there, but in a current AN/I thread user Collect has made a claim that I've heard him state once or twice previously, saying that you apologized to him, as he implies, for having initiated a 2009 RfC/U about him. I wouldn't ask if he hadn't made such a point of that, but since I haven't been able to find where you did so, I was wondering if you could please confirm that, perhaps even with a diff? You're welcome to reply here, btw, since I've temporarily watchlisted this page. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, Ikip apologized - as he was the de facto force behind the RFC/U. But it is always nice to see you trying to roil things up, OS. Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who initiated the RfC/U and I have not apologized actually. Phoenix of9 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phoenix_of9/Archive_1&oldid=1091531749"