User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Yo 2 Thanks 3 Thanks 4 HP Wikipro 5 thanks for the talk page editing 6 Radio-stub 7 Alex Zaitchik 8 Template 9 Chiangchun --> Jiangjun 10 Help 11 Re: admin? 12 Awesome 13 {{vfd}} 14 Thanks! 15 Android79's RfA 16 sorry about the harry dresden page 17 Abinadi Mesa 18 Adminship 19 Wikiproject Drum Corps 20 Sorry about the missunderstanding 21 Cees Veerman 22 Thanks 23 Clemson University 24 Carolina Forest, South Carolina 25 Re:your RfA 26 Harry Potter Template Tip 27 "Greeno Sub Shop" 28 French Ensigns 29 Vandalism 30 My RFA 31 Why I removed my vote

[edit] Yo

Do you have anything to do with User:Deathphoenix? Redwolf24 07:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Other than being markedly similarly named, no. I chuckled the first time I saw the name though. I think Deathphoenix might be participating in the Harry Potter WikiProject with me, I seem to recall running into him around there, but I know I've seen the name around. Why do you ask? EvilPhoenix talk 08:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for removing that VfD tag; I forgot to do that when I closed the debate. -- Essjay · Talk 10:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just noticed you signed my user page, so thanks. Makes me feel good to be noticed. (Usually I ask where you saw me, but it was just minutes ago :) I'll take the time to make two quick notes. First, sorry if I sounded crabby about the speedying bands thing, but lately I've been spending more time on CSD removing bogus tagging that certain people keep doing despite warning (reasons like: "advertising," "dicdef," "not notable," etc. = blech) than actually deleting things. So it's not directed at you. Second I like to give people praise, as I think we all need more of it. I have to say that I've seen you around on NP patrol, and seen some good work. So thanks and keep it up! Anyway, have a good day. And don't worry, your signature looks beautiful to me. It has that elegant simplicity that comes from functionality. :) --Dmcdevit·t 08:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HP Wikipro

An anonymous user recently did some major moving around of pages on the WikiProject, which I have reverted. I told the anon that I felt that such major changes should at least have some discussion first before being made. I also disagreed with the changes, so I personally would oppose the changes that were made. I just wanted to let you know, since you've been a pretty active participant in the project. EvilPhoenix talk 23:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I'll keep an eye out on these pages when I can. --Deathphoenix 03:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; after further examination, I saw which anon you meant, and I usually see good work out of that anon. --Deathphoenix 03:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it, that anon's already been asked, and I'm sure has good reasons for not editing under a user name. Nice sig, and I think I've already mentioned this to you, but I like your user name. :-) --Deathphoenix 03:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

hahaha... that's pretty funny, I can see how people might be confused. We have similar names and we're both interested in Harry Potter. Unfortunately, I'm not on AIM, but I have an MSN account. I sent you an email with the details. --Deathphoenix 03:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the talk page editing

thanks for changing the talk page attack on me. I appreciate it. out of curiosity, how did you happen to notice it?

On another note, I recently changed a link on a person's talk page (dangerous boy) to reflect the fact that i had moved the page, and he got angry at me... what is the official wikipolicy on changing another users pages? (not that i minded yours by any means - i appreciated it greatly)

--jonasaurus 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that there is an official policy. Can you put in the link to the edit diff in question, just for my curiosity? I'd say it's pretty much up to the individual person, and common sense....changing what someone said or removing someones comments would definitely be bad, but general corrections aren't always bad, but some people can be picky. I noticed it cause I have your talk page on my watchlist (I do that whenever I tag someone with welcome. Patronizing, no? ;-) ), and I saw a weird looking edit and went to check it out, then noticed theyd randomly added something below said welcome tag, making it look like i'd said it, so i deleted it until i figured out it was recent, then I just blinged it with unsigned. Rock on dude. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page difference. --jonasaurus 19:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

meh. It's not really that worth him getting bent up over it, it's not really worth your stressing it. You meant well. Keep on being bold, and just accept that not everyone will like every single edit you make. I still get corrected every now and then myself. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 08:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio-stub

Hi Evilphoenix - you wrote: I edited {{Radio-stub}} to make it more general, while most of the stubs are about programs, I felt the stub should encompass all of radio, as I was also tagging a radio station article with it, and there are a few other radio station articles tagged.

Trouble is, that stub was deliberately intended for radio programmes. There is already a stub used for stations - broadcast-stub (or US-bcast-stub, UK-bcast-stub, etc, depending on where the station is). The whole area of broadcasting (as far as stubs is concerned) is one that's undergoing a lot of splitting at the moment, but it's very useful to keep the stations and the program(me)s separate, in the same way we have with tv. Grutness...wha? 13:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Zaitchik

Freelance journalists are often notable, so I feel that mentioning that someone is a freelance journalist is an assertion of notability. Some certainly aren't notable, but that's what VfD is for. Anyway, looks like another admin has a different definition of what asserts notability so it's moot point now. JYolkowski // talk 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

That makes perfect sense. I just reverted to the original way, but you are right. Personally, I don't think four test templates are even necessary. I usually do Test2, then Test4. If problems persist after that, I request a ban. Ryan 04:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chiangchun --> Jiangjun

Hi, perhaps that was a bit quick on the trigger? The discussion was not seven-day old yet and a general consensus was not forming. As you might notice, the rename votes were generally not backed up by valid reasons while the delete votes were. Furthermore, those who voted rename generally have at best preliminary knowledge in the Chinese language. What do you suggest that i do now, as the advocate for deletion of the "Chiangchun" article? Should i start a VfD for Jiangjun as well? Thanks. --Plastictv 05:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Plastictv, Thanks for your comments. The general period for VfD deliberation is five days, not seven, and the page was past the five day mark. I counted it as 4 votes for delete, and 5 votes to redirect. This is less than half in favor of deletion, which in my opinion is not enough of a consensus for deletion to qualify to delete, and therefore I attempted to implement the consensus to redirect, which was unanimous among those voting keep. Both those voting to redirect and those voting for deletion seemed to have valid reasons, in my interpretation. If you wish to nominate Jiangjun for deletion, personally I would reccomend waiting some time, as the article it was merged with only just survived a VfD, however:

• A. It is not the exact same article.
• B: Most of the article content was deleted, and it is now a stub.

So there might be justification for going ahead with a deletion nomination for Jianjung, which I leave to your discretion. If I may be of further assistance, please let me know. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. i'll see what i can do with Jiangjun, which in my opinion shouldn't stay as well. :) --Plastictv 07:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, sorry to bother you but i'm not very sure with what to do in this matter. A vote on renaming Category:Heroes of the Three Kingdoms had been conducted and the decision is to rename to Category:People of the Three Kingdoms. Besides creating the new category, should i keep an archive of the discussion in the talk page of the new category? And could you help delete the old one? Does it work like that? Thanks so much! :) --Plastictv 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest going ahead with creating the new category, archiving the discussion in the new category, and submitting the old category to Categories for deletion. And I can't help you delete the old one, I'm not an admin, but CfD is probably the way to go on that one anyway. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Re: admin?

Hey, no I'm not an admin (I suggested Dbraceyrules wait a month or so) and so I do go closing the keep VfDs for "fun and relaxation"! I had to revert myself over a debate you had closed, last night (my time) too. I suppose it must be a browser caching problem though I'm not sure why a transclusion would cause a browser to cache the page. I've also sped the process up some by giving myself buttons for closing VfDs, and putting messages to that effect on the article talk pages — you can steal them from in amongst my monobook.js if you don't have something similar. I mean to add a button for rm'ing the tag from articles too, but didn't get around to it yet. -Splash 16:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome

Hey thanks for adding the category line to my pages on Aunt Josephine and Ike Anwhistle, I guess I forgot it when I typed up the page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.175.98 (talk • contribs) 00:37, August 21, 2005

[edit] {{vfd}}

They shouldn't both point to "votes". Uncle G is working hard on a rename and some other user was messing it up. Fixed now. Radiant_>|< 08:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. It was particularly good to receive enthusiastic support from editors with whom I haven't interacted directly. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again! -Splash 23:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Android79's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA and for your kind comments. android79 15:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sorry about the harry dresden page

i just had the name wikilinked because the character is named after those particular magicians: harry houdini, harry blackstone, and david copperfield.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.100.186 (talk • contribs) 17:09, September 13, 2005.

It's not a huge deal, why not just add a sentence explaining who the character is named for, rather than implying it with wikilinks? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 12:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abinadi Mesa

Hi. The first entry on that article was "Abinadi Mesa is a Minneapolis-based artist." The second one wasn't much bigger. I'm pleased you expanded it, but there was very little to go by initially. I think that my decision was justified and I thank you for pointing out that this entry could have been justified and was. - Lucky 6.9 04:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that I reread that...did I make sense? I swear, the only thing I've had to drink tonight is a Diet Coke.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Hey, I noticed your link on your user page. From the looks of that page and your user talk page, I personally think you'd be an excellent candidate. I'd be happy to nominate you if/when you feel the time is right. However I should point out that I've only been here 2-3 months myself so I'd understand if you'd prefer it done by someone less green. Unless you've been doing evil things that I haven't yet noticed, you can count on my support whenever you get nominated, regardless of who does it. Friday (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate the support. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Drum Corps

I would like to invite you to join the newly formed WikiProject Drum Corps, a WikiProject for the expansion of all things drum corps. If you'd like, add your name to the list of members, and lend a hand in some of the things we have yet to do! There's plenty lying around, but even a small contibution is very welcome. Hope to see you lending your knowledge to our growing collection of drum corps articles! Mr Bound 18:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the missunderstanding

In response to your comment on my User Talk. I was only atempting to delete a comment that I made right before I had signed up as a member because I didn't like it the way it was. I wanted to rewrite it and put my signature on it so that people wouldn't just ignore it. I wasn't maliciously trying to delete some one else comment. Man of Mystery 00:54, 16 September 2005

Well, why dont you just go ahead and leave the comment, since it's not connected with your username, and now any comments you leave from here out you can sign. Welcome to Wikipedia! Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cees Veerman

Please consider withdrawing your AfD nom - see the Dutch Wikipedia article. Thanks. Guettarda 02:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome and for the links! JJRobledo-Arnuncio 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clemson University

Sure. The Clemson University article has been temporarily protected due to vandalism. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carolina Forest, South Carolina

• Please see Copyvio#Instructions, the very first instruction under "Article?" where it says "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can — and you're done!". Reviewing the prior versions of the article, there are clearly versions that did not violate copyright. You should, therefore, revert the article to a prior version that did not have copyright violations rather than placing {{copyvio}} on the page. In the future, please follow the instructions as they are written. --Durin 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have now reverted the article to an earlier version that did not have the copyright violations, per instructions as referred to above. In the future, please follow these instructions. While the copyright issue is a serious one (and I am well aware of it) we need to follow Wikipedia policy on these issues, rather than immediately presuming the article should be speedy deleted. Please feel free to review the article as it now stands for possible copyright violations. --Durin 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would disagree that there was "clearly" a non-copyvio version, but as far as I can tell, the version you have located seems to be in order. However, consider that if there was clearly a non-copyvio version, why did you not immediately revert to that version, instead of
    A. reverting back to the version immediately prior, which was clearly in copyright violation, and
    B. stating in your edit summary: "there is good content here. Need to recover from history", which implies (in my mind) that you felt that the copyvio material that I had already culled from the article should be replaced?
    I double checked on the speedy deletion criteria, and removed the tag when I realized that the article did not meet the criteria. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Take this in this spirit it's intended, as I mean nothing harsh. If an editor makes an addition to Wikipedia that is in error, other editors that detect the error should move to correct it. The speedy tag was clearly in error. In addition, the copyvio tag did not follow procedure so it was also in error...even though in reverting it there was still copyrighted text in the article. It was an incorrect edit in itself, and needed to be reverted. I was hoping, given my edit summary, that you or someone else would take the time to review the history and ascertain what was the last good, non-copyvio version. When it was obvious that was not going to happen, and I had more time available, I took the time to find the last non-copyvio version in the history stack. There may be additional material past that which is non-copyvio, but the version I eventually reverted to is the clearest case I could come up with. In so doing, I was complying with what Copyvio#Instructions indicates should be done. You are about to become an admin; be certain you are following procedure, or if you find a reason not to follow procedure, be prepared to back up your decision with strong rationale. I have confidence in your abilities, and I voted in favor of your RfA. I do not often vote, and most of my votes are oppose. I think you will make a fine admin; just be sure to follow procedure as others will be looking to you for direction. --Durin 01:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your support on my RfA, and your thoughtful reply. Likewise, I mean nothing harsh, as I value civil discourse and discussion. However, I do not feel that it was neccessarily intuitive that you expected someone else to immediately revert to a non-copyvio version. When I initially examined the article, I did actually look at earlier versions, searching for a version not in copyright violation. When I looked at the version you picked, it still seemed to me like a potential copyvio. Having already cleared a major section of the article for copyvio, and finding a significant part of the opening to be in copyright violation, I did not feel the need to check each and every sentence for copyvio. It seemed that most of the edits to the article were from the same anon IP that had engaged in copyvios, so I wasn't really willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the remainder of the article. As it turns out, that was, in this case, an incorrect assumption. I have no problems with other editors correcting my work, it's been a frequent occurence in my time here, and I have no issue with that. However, please understand that from my perspective, after you initially reverted my edit, at that time: A. I wasn't convinced that there was any part of the article not in copyvio and B. It was not immediately obvious to me that your intention was for a non-copyvio version to be changed to. All I saw was another editor removing what I felt was a clearly justified copyvio tag and reverting to a version that was in copyright violation, which to me, is not an acceptable resolution to the copyright issue. I feel that once a copyvio tag is in place, it should not be moved unless the problem is fully addressed, lest a known copyright violation exist on Wikipedia, even if only for a short amount of time. Reverting to a copyvio version does not address the problem, and therefore I do not feel is as good of a solution as going ahead and reverting to a non-copyvio version. That is why I disputed the initial removal of the template. I feel there better choices both of us could have made, but I feel we have managed to arrive at a better understanding through discussion. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:your RfA

Oops! Thanks for the heads up... ah well, you know what they say: vote early, vote often. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Template Tip

I don't know if there's been any discussion about and consensus reached regarding the Harry Potter templates, so don't take this as supporting or condemning your changes, just as a friendly tip to save you time in the event that what you're doing isn't violating any sort of consensus. Okay, disclaimer done :-) (For the record, I myself like the templates. But I'd rather have one definite way of doing things than having them switched back and forth constantly.)

Instead of changing each and every {{CoS}} (just to use one as an example) to [[Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets|Chamber of Secrets]], you can just visit Template:CoS and change the text there to your preferred version. That will, I believe, automatically change every instance in which it is used. --Icarus 18:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For an example of discussion, please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:CoS, where the consensus is to delete this particular template. Following said consensus, I have nominated the other templates as well. The problem with using the template is that it uses transclusion, which is more expensive system resource wise than a redirect or a direct link. There's nothing wrong with taking the extra time to type out the full link. I think linking to articles by the book title, such as Goblet of Fire is better than using the full title, and also better than using something like GoF, as I think the full title is a bit tedious to use in every instance, and using just the initials is a bit informal. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If the general consensus is to do away with the templates, then though I myself disagree, I will, of course, accept the general consensus. I see that you've done a lot of work to change all of the templates into normal links, and I commend your effort! I thought of another way that you could make that easier on yourself, if there are still instances that need to be changed. You could chage the template itself to read as you want the final link to read. Then, simply add "subst:" to the beginning of each instance where the template is used and, when the page is saved, the text of the template will replace the template marker. You'll still have to do it instance by instance, but you can simply copy and paste "subst:" instead of having to type out the entire thing or copy and paste from six different possibilities. --Icarus 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Greeno Sub Shop"

Good point - nn-bio was the wrong choice for the speedy tag. On your advice, I nominated it as an Afd. And thanks for the encouragement: it certainly takes the bite off of an otherwise "downer" (although justified!) comment.  :) Also, thanks to your comment, I noticed that there are two articles to be dealt with here: "Greeno Sub Shop" and Greeno Sub Shop. The former has been changed to a RD, and the latter nominated for AfD. Cheers! Peruvianllama 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Ensigns

Yes, I can see that it isn't very easy to get much out of the talk page at French ensigns. The style of discussion is definitely not easy to follow. The AfD page isn't much better. I agree that it isn't worth reverting to the deleted version without more consensus, I just felt that it was a bit hasty to call the deletion "vandalism", since it was actually moving material to another page, which is the preferred option of all but one (vocal) user on that page. JPD 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Remember to revert to the unvandalised version. Happy editign. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Must have missed one, just pulling em off IRC as they come. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I did not remove your oppision on purpose and I did not even realised that I did, if I had I would of put it back. I dont know at which point it even disapeared. When was it? --☺Adam1213☺|talk 06:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The point I linked to in my vote. If it was an accident, just say so. I'll believe you. If you're going to remove your support for my RfA, it would be better to simply strike out the vote then to blank it from the page. I replaced it on the page and re-factored it to reflect your removal of support. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why I removed my vote

The reason I voted for you was because you were removing vandalism. If you cant vote for me for the same reason than obviusly you do not regard it as a reason to vote for someone, so my vote for you, for with the same reason can't happen as you dont regard it as a reason --☺Adam1213☺|talk 06:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Your removing your vote doesn't bother me. The way you removed it just doesn't follow normal convention, that's all. You're free to support or not. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)