User talk:Phoenixthebird

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Phoenixthebird, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Smkolins (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citations

Hi - I noticed your work on a few pages. You may find referencing Wikipedia:CITET useful for templates on citation styles. Using them will help a fair bit in improving the articles. You can use them inline like a list of books as well as in ref brackets as references. Smkolins (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you might like to review and help clean or clean up the phrasing of Bahá'í Faith and Native Americans

-) Smkolins (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Gareth Loy. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I've explained further on the article's talk page. Best wishes! Etrigan (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to help with actual Editing

Freaked and bummed that pages got deleted and flagged. If it don't stop, could actually throw a tantrum.

Hi -- you seem to have gotten upset and are flailing a bit. Can I suggest that you take a break for a couple days to calm down? I have done quite a bit of "real work" on Wikipedia's neuroscience articles, and if there is anything I can do to help your efforts here go more smoothly, please say so. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, same goes here, let me know if you know of any neuro stuff that needs help. I'm finding a few myself now. Phoenixthebird (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Just to clarify, you've said repeatedly that EEng deleted the page at Joaquin Fuster. EEng is not an admin, and couldn't have deleted the page. It was actually admin JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) who deleted it [1] as an unambiguous copyright infringement. He's left the talk page up to explain his actions. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of your clarification: EENG blanked the page down to a single sentence. I guess that's not deletion, but a rose by any other name...??? Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Fuster added GNU language to the site, negating any copyright issues, which was also only one of the references (Scholarpedia, Nature, Science, SJN were also deleted along with Doc Fuster's own site by EENG, and subsequently, Watson (I presume). Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got that straightened out with help from EE and an "article saver" editor. What a cool thing to have "article savers" here!

'We'?

How many are you? Is this just a figure of speech? Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. I keep forgetting how international this group is-- yes "we" is an editorial we, meaning me, a 70 year old half blind prof at MIT. Some guy named Anderson criticized this, thinking "we" are many. Does Schizophrenia count? If so... hmmm, he may be right. I've got a large staff of really smart guys who work for me, but I'd be way shy to have them see what a mess my efforts are here. I'm sure some of them are admins here, but it would be a COI for me to ask for their help, not to mention the embarrassment of having the "boss" ask for help for not understanding Mickey Mouse stuff! Thanks for asking, and for assuming value and withholding judgment, rather than accusing right out of the box as a few other guys have. In particular, some "Uncle G" guy has issued threats... probably not realizing that old farts like us don't worry about whatever it is he's worried about or threatening! Phoenixthebird (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Joaquin Fuster. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments on the administrative action we've opened against EENG to support his position, thanks! We removed the talk page on behalf of the subject of the article to protect Wiki. Before you accuse me of vandalism, after deleting a page we worked on for many days with the principal, check with Wiki's attorneys, as we are working to avoid the problems you and EENG have created with the deletion. Vituperous talks like that created by EENG's patience-lacking templates, even while we had in progress editing templates active, confuse and anger principals. The subject put GNU type language on his site, and without even checking it, you and/ or EENG capriciously deleted the whole article, without inviting discussion or votes from any other admins. We are asking for administrative support, since EENG also subsequently began to systematically tag all our contributions in vendetta fashion. Are you and EENG working on this together, or are you looking objectively at the notability of this gentleman? Most admins would have allowed far more time to work with the subject and get the article "right" since we were doing all the work! Thanks for looking at both sides, I'm assuming you have more objectivity than EENG has shown here. There was ZERO liability while we were working with the subject on this article, you've actually worsened the situation for Wiki (from the subject's standpoint) by insultingly removing the article and leaving the talk. You need to put yourself in the principal's shoes here, who went above and beyond to protect Wiki by agreeing to public domain language on his site, and was "rewarded" with your way-too-fast deletion, leaving only combative talks under this distinguished gentleman's name.

When an editor is working with a principal, time is needed to "get it right." This is SO basic! There were NO copyright issues, as the subject easily agreed to put GNU language on his site. Your actions and those of EENG's have created more risk for Wiki than if you'd just shown a little patience instead of instantly firing off your deletion dispenser. Admins need more training if you don't even take the time to get second opinions, especially when an editor is working diligently with a principal. Cripes, this distinguished gentleman was going reference to reference with me to pick out the ones that were juried and peer reviewed for inclusion, and remove those that weren't! Given some of the poor quality of other Wiki articles, this is surely above and beyond.Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're putting a lot of weight into personal contact and communication with the subjects of articles. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, not just personal information and references provided by the subject. Dayewalker (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but when someone is born in 1930, the web (circa 1989) misses a lot of good references, which the principal can steer us to. As long as we can verify the reference, does it really matter who "pointed" us to the original source? This guy has 2,000 references in his PFT Text alone, and has published hundreds of scientific articles in the top journals worldwide for 40 years. We actually did have many references from Google and other sources, which were all deleted when Watson blew the whole thing away. We were adding them madly but I guess the clock ran out. That's not to miss your point-- I'm also of course doing wide and deep searches independent of the subject for each article, but if we're being honest, who knows the sources better than the subjects? Thanks for helping educate me on the process here. Given that we have no relationship with these guys, there's no promotion involved, but again honestly, we wouldn't pick a subject unless they were notable and above reproach in the first place, just like Perry Mason never picked a guilty client! ;=) Phoenixthebird (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Gareth Loy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, sweetie, don't get your underwear in a bunch, we have gotten religion and are becoming AVID template adders. Do you not think it is hypocrisy for Watson (above) to criticize us for removing a slanderous page, when EENG (not an admin) BLANKED the entire Fuster article down to one sentence? Watson then claimed that he, not EENG "deleted the article." Come on guys, if he blanks an entire page down to a single sentence, than't not a deletion? Here I'm only doing what Watson and his buddy did, and you're sending warnings? So, if EENG has an admin (some sock?) on his side, he can remove templates and blank pages, but I can't? I'm ok with that, if that's how it works here, but you young guys are sure confusing. A few less "Proudfoot threatening" type admins have actually been mentoring me about how this place works, so maybe I'll get it eventually. I'm old, but I'll keep trying to understand you folks. I couldn't care less about one user name or another, heck we're all volunteers here, right? BTW: you added your "warning" belatedly in response to other talks, I assume, as we didn't remove ANY tags after our battle with EENG, who was removing ours and blanking our pages, which is ancient history. A few admins actually agreed with us and asked us to calm down and not take Watson's actions (although wrong from a copyright standpoint) personally. You, however, seem to be playing the "tough guy" after the fact-- are you a kid or a sock? Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PROUDFOOT: Wow! I was teasing a little about templates, then read your talk page. Cripes, you REALLY DO spend all your time issuing tags!!! Yikes, and I thought I was just kidding! You've written one article and your whole history shows tons and tons of tags! You are my idol and hero now.Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down the personal attacks. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and, unfortunately, sarcasm is not terribly conducive to collaboration. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, agree with you though, I'm a counterpuncher, and have given back only 10% of what I've gotten from a few real nasties. I've responded with a little humorous sarcasm to a few high testosterone guys who are blanking pages, sending baseless threats, using little sock networks, etc. The guy above is a perfect example, I had nothing to do with him, and without even looking at the issue or ANI thread, he started dispensing threats. Upon further review, he's gotten numerous complaints for vandalizing the hard work of others, which hit a nerve. I love your logic though, collaboration has a foundation of understanding, and if a guy only issues templates and does no original contributions or help with articles-- where is the collaboration? I'm guessing a lot of these types are middle school kids. I'm on a number of juried Wikis and they are a different world! I notice that people react here (like me) assuming some kind of good faith and experience, but when some kid can issue a template or warning... good grief Charlie Brown, what a silly situation! Of course we wouldn't respond to it if we knew they were a kid, but until Wiki starts requiring proof of age, many besides me will be confused by actions that seem way childish for an adult, even when the threats have consequences as others interpret the ding as from an adult. Nicely, I've had a number of experienced admins explain to me that many of the threats or integrity questions I've gotten have been because of an oversensitivity here, even by admins, to people trying to push products. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body, I'm an academic, and my enthusiasm for wonderful contibutors to the CNS field like Dr. Fuster is sadly taken for some kind of "marketing." But I DO get the oversensitivity. Live long and prosper... Phoenixthebird (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sarek: Here's an example from Proud's talk page: "Your uploads." "You know what? Fine. I don't care. I was trying to be helpful by giving you a warning, but you don't care, you just want to assume bad faith on my part. So, just let all of your copyright violating images get deleted. Enjoy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)"

He has rollback rights, yet his talk page is filled with incredulous people who did hard work and then got speedy deletion notices or other warnings from him, which seems to be his total M.O.. Reviewing his history, it is filled with complaints that he's abusing his authority, yet no one seems to care! He doesn't ANSWER A SINGLE QUESTION asked on his talk page, or on their pages, by newbies who he tags! Where is the collaboration, sir? He tags and then moves on, which shows a complete disregard for educating new editors. Look as his sarcasm in the sentence above. Me, I don't care personally as a total newbie, but for some guy who is supposedly the big brother cop-- someone made a mistake with this guy. He actually thinks warnings are "helpful" -- think about THAT logic!! Maybe he needs to get a few to know what it feels like? It is a "safe" path here to do nothing but criticize and tag others, except that you never look in the mirror and see that you're NOT being helpful with an overactive warning dispenser. Phoenixthebird (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining an image

Hello Phoenixthebird. I have stumbled to this page and become interested in some of the conversation I have observed. Subsequently I have become interested in the biographical article for Dr. Fuster. I am a member of the article rescue squadron and articles for creation. Interestingly enough, this situation seemed to apply a little in both regards.

I am a bit late as the article has already been deleted. I have however contributed to the new article and am reasonable sure it meets all notability standards and sourcing requirements. It should only improve from here. The main reason I contacted you here is because you indicated you may have contact with the subject and perhaps can accomplish some small but necessary things which will allow the article to further improve. I want to put an infobox into the article with a picture of the Dr. but as you well know there is the copyright issues. If there is any way you can cause the subject to release the photo here [2] with a creative commons attribution or the like, that would be great. Ironically there should be some copyright statement on the image page but it is missing. Or maybe you can just take a picture yourself and upload it.

If you intend to upload a photo be advised that the process is deliberately inflexible therefore everything must be in order. It is much harder to correct something that is wrong than it is to do it correctly at first. So if you do have a photo to upload perhaps ask me on my talkpage for assistance and I'll help make sure it's done correctly. An incorrect upload has a life span of about 2 minutes on commons. before it's tagged for deletion. If they can add the CCA by SA attribution to the file I provided, I can get that photo in rather quickly. Same said for an original work, So long as the owner releases it under some similar license. Let me know if any of this is possible, and I hope you approve of the contributions I have made to this article. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazing 76 Strat, an article rescue person, wow! If I can help with any of your articles, let me know. Doc Fuster added a copyright free notice to his website at www.joaquinfuster.com (see the bottom of the page). I'm an IP attorney, and this gives you open use of the photo as long as you credit the source (there is a photo at the top of the first page of the site-- you can use it and credit the link back to his site now.). I don't know the Doc (I've been emailing him during the course of the article), but I'm happy to get whatever release you need from him. I'm in Boston (and visit fellow professors in AZ and CA in the Summer) but I am not near him to take a picture, as he's at UCLA and I'm at Scripps Clinic and the UCSD Supercomputing Center when I'm in CA, which is in San Diego. MIT has extension sabbatical campuses which we share in the supercomputing projects with mutual reciprocity, including Los Alamos. I put the original article up in a Sandbox if you can use anything from it. If you need any other language on Doc's site about the picture, I can request that he add it. Thanks for keeping this going! You've encouraged me to keep editing. Beyond that, I have a contributor in AZ who's daughter asked him to contribute $10 million to the Wikimedia foundation (she has contacted the fund raising group directly at Wikimedia), and he's asked me what I think. What I think is: people like you balance the folks who keep deleting worthy things!!! Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76: I put the originally deleted article in a user sandbox in case you can use anything from it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuster_Sandbox

Thanks! Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, awards are key to wiki notability and some independent award sources were in the original article, as well as a review on Science Journal News, all of which are independent of Doc Fuster. The article looks great as you've rescued it, with independent sources that are unassailable. Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start rolls on

Congrats, Ptb, on figuring out the Talkbalk, although usually by leaving that on my Talk you would mean that there was something you'd written here, on your Talk, for me (or maybe you'd added to a discussion we had started and was still ongoing). So I'll start a conversation now.

Also, if there's a conversation that's been going back and forth quickly, it's usually not necessary to bother placing the Talkback -- once I get into a conversation I'll usually "watch" it for a while so I'll see anything new and respond. Of course, if I don't respond after a day or two maybe I missed the new comments, and then you might want to give me a "talkback." Talkbacks are usually added right to the top of the other persons Talk page, and they don't need their own section since they are (or should be) removed by the person it's directed at once he sees it.

Thank you for your comments at [3]. I think everyone watching (and believe me, a lot of people are watchine after the kind of fireworks that were going on for a few days there) is really pleased to see how quickly things have settled into a productive rhythm. This is why "Assume good faith" is such an important fundamental principle for Wikipedia -- although it's clear not everyone gave you the courtesy of assuming that about you. (I did assume you were working in good faith, I just thought you were nuts out of your mind!)

But remember, there will be times you think someone's not being fair. Turn the other cheek! Count to 100! Stick to the issues and ignore the nasty stuff, and don't take it personally.

And good work getting a start on cutting the fat from Gareth Loy and Wayne Jacobsen. I think you're getting a much clearer idea of the tone that's wanted for articles, especially bio articles. Keep it up, and keep asking questions.EEng (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will for sure! I tried to mend a few mistakes due to my misunderstanding when I saw a couple other green newbies like myself also angry at you due to the same misunderstanding of what you were doing, which is just about mistakenly taking things personally as you said. If I screw up I won't fawn but I also won't let someone take a hit for my own lack of experience or knowledge. After reviewing a couple other discussion pages of a couple (to remain un-named) admins, I realized you are fair and balanced by comparison! We have an old saying similar to yours of "Assume value, withold judgment" and I've got to be sure that I encode it at the Amygdala, not just the PFC level. Of course, it is quite possible to work in good faith and still be nuts, as you accurately calculated. One of the admins found this out about me when he couldn't figure out why I kept calling myself "we." I have guys on my team doing work at mediawiki and wikimedia as developers and if they knew who I was here their jaws would drop at my inexperience. They create "intranet" wikis for .edu teams-- they are cool, and use the wiki format for collaboration. (No, they don't have access to my user ID! Heaven forbid!). Thanks for the tip on the talkback template, I didn't realize it went at the top-- don't laugh but it still feels creepy adding stuff to other people's pages, let alone right up top! Phoenixthebird (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Phoenixthebird. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 04:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Katy Perry?

Golden Poison Frog: enough toxin to kill 15,000 humans or one Katy Perry? Is this a sick joke, PR, or simply libelous reference to a young singer? Wiki has its oddities people. The PR firms are amazing, aren't they? Anything to get a Google link. Where else on Wiki has this been quitely inserted? Any admins willing to do a global search? Phoenixthebird (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anybody can edit", and consequently the encyclopedia that anybody can vandalize. That's what happened here. When you see something like that, you can fix it if you like, by going to the "View history" tab and performing an "undo" on the edit that introduced the vandalism. (I've already done it here.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated too late?

... and also I can't remember, but if I didn't thank you for this around the time then I hope you get this thanks now :) LookingGlass (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Jacobsen

Hello Phoenixthebird. I am writing to inform you that an article that you have created on Wayne Jacobsen possesses multiple issues in need of revision. This is a courtesy notification. Firstclass306 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]