User talk:Phoenixrod

Hello Phoenixrod, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out some of the important links below. If you really need help, just type {{helpme}} on your user page. It's that easy!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome! Jfingers88 01:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Phoenixrod 02:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fuck with my articles or i will kill you motherfucker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.121.107.59 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 14 March 2006.

• my reply

• my original comment and reply to Jfingers88

Hmm. You must have angered this 67.121.107.59 a lot, especially since (s)he posted the death threat on your page before making any edits to the Ryan Braun article. [1]

My advice would be not to anger anyone, though it seems that those edits were legit. Don't make bad edits, but if you do, another editor would probably just give you a little polite notice so you don't make the same mistake again. This person who threatened you probably feels a little more powerful hiding behind the anonymity of an IP address.

Your next recourse should be to review thoroughly the personal attack policy of Wikipedia and follow the advice given there, especially under Remedies.

Oh, yeah, it's a bad idea to take things off your talk page unless you're archiving. Which means you may have to put the threat back on, depending on general consensus. I've seen some talk pages that were at least partially blanked by the owner but reverted by another editor because of this reason.

Good luck, and hopefully your editing goes better from now on! Jfingers88 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original threat, for the record, read "Don't fuck with my articles or i will kill you motherfucker". I reverted the page because 67.121.107.59 overwrote some text. Phoenixrod 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the original comment back on (at the start of this section) and added the unsigned tag, on the above advice of Jfingers88. -Phoenixrod 17:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, i think those stats are pretty super-human, wouldn't you agree? What college baseball player in the last 20 yrs. has posted similar stats with 26 stolen bases to boot? Check the numbers my friend, those stats are definitely Herculean. Furthermore, don't edit things unless they are untrue or unfounded. His stats speak for themeselves so don't touch the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.225.229 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 March 2006.

• my reply

I WROTE THE ARTICLE SIR! And I would appreciate that should you have a problem with people editing an article, you take it up in an honorable fashion. And to masquerade behind an IP address while claiming that it is you who is the author is quite childish and inappropriate. Now I'm saying to you sir, please do not interfere with the integrity of my article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ralphie90 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 April 2006.

• my reply

Ralphie90, are you responding to the anonymous IP who edited Ryan Braun? If you are, I doubt (s)he will be reading my talk page. You might do well to write something on the anon's talk page or add to the Ryan Braun talk page. I appreciate that you started the article and want it to be a quality article, but please remember that no one, not even you as creator of the page, owns an article. If you were simply throwing anon's phrase back ironically, I apologize for taking you too literally; it's hard to tell in a print medium. Oh, and a minor point: please sign your messages (with four ~ symbols) -- it makes it easier for me to know whom I am talking to! Thanks! Phoenixrod 07:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: thanks for fixing that typo on Downers Grove South.--Kevin Walter 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words! I'm usually more of a wiki gnome editor, but a little attention now and then doesn't hurt.  :) -Phoenixrod 17:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey man, thanks for the vigilance on the Rickie Weeks page. Although I do have one point to contest with you - his defense has been atrocious and what Yount was saying in the article was to just leave the kid alone and let him play. of course he has be concerned with 9 errors in 24 games! He's on pace for 60, my man! anyhow, if you want to qualify the fielding assessment with that link, you can put it back up. i'm not going to be a dick and keep on taking it down. i can see how the watching pages and the potential cat and mouse type thing can be addicitive. we have some things in common - literature and baseball. not a bad combination IMO well, I'm sure Weeks will be fine eventually. He is quite a special talent on an exciting team. take it easy - Leo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leoleo0422 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 May 2006.

• my original comment

I had just come accross a vanity page and automatically assumed I had dones so again. I marked it as speedy, then went to check the history to see who to tell off for spamming, and I realised it had a whole heap more history than it should. So I changed it! Thanks anyway skorpion 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for overeager additions! (Have actually added unreverted (ahem:) info and links, and tended to spelling corrections, etc., for a good year or so.) My intent was to delineate official, original info via links because commercial references use same without permission or courtesy of attribution. Anyway, could you kindly e-me via the Mail link on the site? TIA, AnonHerePlease, a.k.a. 206.63.151.65 06:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• my reply

Just wanted to thank you for the official welcome. Take care! JelloSheriffBob 05:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)User:JelloSheriffBob[reply]

You are welcome! Let me know if you have any questions. -Phoenixrod 08:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

Actually I did preview. It didn't help. I needed coffee. Once my brain engaged I realized what the issue was in the link (a space) I always thought M was for minor corrections like spelling and punctuation. Anything else in my opinion would be more than minor, though not necessairly major.Gfwesq 03:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

Thanks for catching that. It must have been due to that @!#^% Google toolbar bug. eaolson 13:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha, thanks for signing my name for me. For some reason i just forgot to sign my name in the slugging percentage page so yeah, thanks. --CesarCossio 19:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it happens. :) I just like it to be clear who says what, so I use the unsigned template quite a bit. -Phoenixrod 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's right. :) (re: cleavage (breasts)) -- Gotyear 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to check this out, he blanked out his page again and made what I think is a threat. Nate 11:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it when I have some Wiki-time. -Phoenixrod 16:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for transparency, here is the rather lengthy reply I made to Quentinmatsys: [2]. -Phoenixrod

Thanks for the welcome, a bit more friendlier and helpful than scanning the whole help section. Can't wait to make a lot more contributions to the best encyclopedia in the world! Death to all vandals! You all will be punished! -- Lancelot 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I saw you were a relatively new user, and all the help menus can be a lot to wade through at first. I doubt most new editors actually read them. :) If you are interested in fighting vandalism, you might find WP:Vandal Proof to be a useful link. I don't use Vandal Proof, myself, but if you really want to bring metaphorical death to vandals, it's a start. Or more generally, [3] has a lot of resources for fighting the scourge. Anyway, if you have any questions, visit my talk page again and I'll do my best to point you in the right direction. -Phoenixrod 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [4]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I often forget the test templates. I'll try to be better with them! -Phoenixrod 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phoenixrod! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

I'm not sure what I've done to warrant being re-welcomed (maybe it's like renewing my vows or something?), but the links beyond my first welcome are appreciated. It's good not to have to hunt for these. -Phoenixrod 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second welcome was to leave you with this template. I use this when I do welcomes and find it generally pretty appreciated. Kukini 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for introducing me to wikipedia. See my user page to learn about me. I am very excited about this site! Fortyniners9999 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Let me know if I can help you figure things out. And happy editing! -Phoenixrod 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoenixrod. As you are someone who has been dealing with Quentinmatsys and his refusal to answer for a while, I want to float something by you. I really don't want to jump the gun as far as accusations, but I'm curious how something looks to you. I had reverted one of Quentinmatsys's changes to the Jorie Graham article, specifically one in which he introduced what he claimed was her full name. I notified him on his user page, and he made no attempt to answer. Dfdeent joined on October 19, made the same edit Quentinmatsys had been trying to make (although actually citing a source for it, a website called Veromi), and has disappeared since then. Quentinmatsys returned to posting the same day that Dfdeent's account was created. I'm probably making this sound more complicated than it is. It would be easier to see by just visiting the histories of the Jorie Graham page and the appropriate user histories. In any event, how does the situation look to you? Nervously, ProfJeFF 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, ProfJeFF. I've finally had a chance to glance through the relevant histories; it's the final week of classes, so I'm sure you understand the delay. If I follow your implication, you suspect that Dfdeent may be a sock puppet of Quentinmatsys, right? The timeline does raise my eyebrow. And I can see why it might seem like sockpuppetry, since Dfdeent's sole edit reflects knowledge newcomers seldom have (namely invisibly commenting in article space) and he/she made a similar addition to what Quentinmatsys had made. That said, one fairly innocuous edit made in October doesn't seem worth making a fuss over now. Quentinmatsys hasn't make an edit since 16 November. If either user were currently active and the pattern continued, it might be worth investigating, but as things stand, I don't see a problem. It's likely a coincidence. If you have reason to remain suspicious, keep me posted. In the meantime, don't feel too nervous about it. -Phoenixrod 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I agree that this is hardly worth pursuing, given the relative scarcity of edits and the fact that I'm none too concerned about this particular change. Just struck me as A) rude and B) suspicious. Thanks for your eyes. ProfJeFF 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem rude to me, especially if the two users aren't related; it was more odd than anything. A little suspicious, yes, but not over-the-top. Since I have lots of distance from the article in question, it's easy for me to assume good faith. :) -Phoenixrod 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that your J.D. Drew edit summary made me laugh out loud. It's probably because of some cognitive dissonance, in which I know viscerally that Drew's sucking should not be a matter of debate, yet am committed to NPOV... ah well, it made my night. Stilgar135 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• my reply

Hsr1 recently vandalized my talk page: [5] and [6] -Phoenixrod 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• my response on Hsr1's talk page

• my original comment

Thankyou for your compliments on my work on that article.Yes you are right about the mistakes made there.That's what happens when you're writing an entire article instead of a paragraph.In a pargraph it's easy to spot the errors as there are few words but in an article there are so many words,it's difficult to spot the errors. I thankyou for helping clean up the errors.I'd really appriciate if you kept helping on that.I also posted a few suggestions on the talkpage which I hope you will see.

Again thanks for helping out making improvements.I hope you keep it up.Best regards.--Nadirali نادرالی

Hello, Phoenixrod and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• my reply, or if it gets archived, a permanent link

About the above... why did you delete my comment on Clamster's talk page, as well as another user's? [7] If it was unintentional, sorry for that.--Orthologist 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• my reply to Orthologist

The link I provided just showed the comment I posted, but I think there has been a misunderstanding on my part. Sorry for the trouble.--Orthologist 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Happy editing! -Phoenixrod 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago, I made some comments on the discussion page of Hard Candy (Movie). I come back, and its gone. Is discussion wiped periodically? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raymm (talk • contribs) 11 March 2007.

Hmm, I've had a look at your contributions and at Talk:Hard Candy (film). There's no record of any comments from your user name on that page, although you edited the article itself (Hard Candy (film)). No, talk pages are not wiped periodically. If comments are removed, they should still be available in the history of the page unless an admin permanently deleted something. That's very rare though. Was there anything potentially objectionable in your comments? If not, I have no idea why your comments would be missing from the history. Is there any chance you are confusing the talk page with the article itself? (Your edits to that do show up.) -Phoenixrod 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After more experience, I see I was confusing the talk page with the article itself. Thanks for polite response.--Raymm 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Good luck as you learn more about Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod 17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you (I think? I'm not familiar how to use the history tool) removed a line from Flail (weapon) on March 23? It read: "Controlling the flail is much more difficult than rigid weapons." RandomMonitor 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, RandomMonitor. I had no recollection of removing that particular line, so I checked the history, and you are referring to this edit. I remember fixing the spacing at the end of the edit, in relation to the Lord of the Rings reference, but I certainly did not intend to remove the line you mentioned or re-insert the paragraph my previous edit took out. I'm baffled, since I'm sure I didn't make all those changes. Sometimes the software is buggy—maybe that's what happened? Anyway, I re-inserted the line "Controlling the flail is much more difficult than rigid weapons" at the appropriate place. Sorry for the mixup. I'm still not sure what happened. -Phoenixrod 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a photograph as you requested. Sarum blue 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The pictures look great. I've posted messages on Talk:Aspergilium and Talk:Aspergillum asking if the two articles should be merged, since they seem to describe the same object with one letter different. -Phoenixrod 21:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to merge them. Are you familiar with the process? Sarum blue 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. The idea is to manually combine the information in both articles into one of them and then leave a redirect page on the less common term. Since I don't know enough about aspergilium/aspergillum, I'm not sure I can adequately merge the content myself (and I don't have a lot of time the next week or so!). But if you can decide what information to take from aspergilium and put into aspergillum, go right ahead! -Phoenixrod 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoenixrod and thank you for the correction on my user page. Happy editing!--Ioannes Pragensis 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I've seen your name in a number of chess article histories, and you seem to do good work here. -Phoenixrod 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Cruising your user page, you might be interested in this.

Also, I'm not sure why you did this. Would you mind if I reverted it? It's not a quote, I'm pretty sure that single tics are more appropriate.

WLU 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, WLU. I had posted a link to my particular user stats, but the general tool is a good link too. Plus it's nice to know someone actually looked at my user page. :)

As for the edit to Fartlek, I was always taught to use the single quotation marks only for quotes inside of quotes. Furthermore, I am following (as I understand it) WP:PUNC in the Manual of Style, particularly this section: WP:PUNC#Quotation_marks_affect_searching. If there's a reason to prefer the single marks, please let me know, but my understanding is that Wikipedia prefers the double marks. -Phoenixrod 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greetings as well as the recommendations. Ben.klein 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome! -Phoenixrod 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: this edit, per [8] "archetypal" and "archetypical" mean the same thing. I left it as you wrote it, though. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; they do seem to mean the same thing. I changed it because I've only seen "archetypal" in my reading, though, and a quick check of [9] and archetype uses "archetypal" more than "archetypical". -Phoenixrod 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you would take part in this, and voice your opinion on this issue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports lists --Josh 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've edited a few Middle Earth articles, changing them to present case. This is not what the Middle Earth portal recommends

Tenses

1. All articles that cover in-universe material must be in past tense, as decided as a consensus here. Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, Tolkien-related articles are an exception, due to the fact that we are discussing more than just plots of novels, we are outlining the history of [what we now intepret as] a fictional world — the novels are written in past tense because they are memoirs meant to explain a mythical past of our Earth, much like the Greek Mythology. Also, take consideration into the fact that much of the information is taken not from the novels, but from informational texts (e.g. The History of Middle-earth).

Shall I change them back or is the portal wrong?

Carl Sixsmith 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I only remember changing one Middle-earth article, Sting (Middle-earth), to present tense. If the portal has its own style, we should conform to that. I wasn't aware that the style for ME articles ran counter to the general Wikipedia guidelines, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll change it back to present tense and try to avoid my natural urge to change the tense to the present ... in the future. If you follow me. :) -Phoenixrod 05:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in agreement with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Standards#Tenses, I've changed the article to past tense—but only the parts dealing with Middle-earth-universe history. -Phoenixrod 06:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit, why did you remove the entire references section and then mark the article as unreferenced? Was there a problem with the sources? -Phoenixrod 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I think what happened is I unwittingly edited an old version as if it were the new one, and took out much more than I realized.

Just restored to the previous version. The only change I kept from my mis-reversion was the addition of two categories. / edgarde 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up! -Phoenixrod 04:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and why did you take it upon yourself to "welcome" me to Wikipedia?Ron S 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The antisocial response[10] to a standard welcome template[11] is a great example of why I hate humanity sometimes. :)

The template may be slightly "smarmy", as Ron S believes, but I don't think it is excessively so. In fact, I've been thanked above for giving welcome messages. Sheesh, world, what gives? But in all seriousness, Edgarde has it right.[12] Let's try to assume good faith, even on a friendly (or is it sinister and self-serving?!) hello. -Phoenixrod 07:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, Phoenixrod. I have been trying to put citations for journal articles on a few pages, but I can't figure out how to format them. Is there a particular style that is wiki-accepted? Saar42 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, Saar42. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources for an overview on Wikipedia's guidelines for citation. Journal-specific templates are available at Wikipedia:Citation_templates; you can fill in the relevant information and the format should be standardized. There does not appear to be a clear consensus on what style to use (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). Feel free to ask me anything else (or post on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources with more detailed citation issues that other editors would have more experience with). -Phoenixrod 18:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about this, until I saw it come up on my watchlist, but I disagree entirely with your assertion that the old biased section is better than nothing at all. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable, especially for biographies of living persons. Most of the moments in that section had no references. Leebo ^T/C 03:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leebo, I think you misread my intent. You said on Bradley's talk page that you had removed a section on controversy with Milton Bradley and were planning to do a rewrite yourself. I did not dig in the article's history to find the old section, so I don't know what it used to look like (and I'd never visited the page before). Obviously, we need to comply with the BLP policy. My brief reply on Talk:Milton Bradley (baseball)#Controversial moments section was meant to be to the effect that Bradley is more controversial than many baseball players, so completely ignoring his various controversies and altercations is not accurate; most media articles about him mention his temper and on-field transgressions. It's important to address them in some way if we want a reasonable article (and, again obviously, as all editors should know, that means proper citations and NPOV). My comment on the talk page was simply en passant a gentle nudge that someone (especially you, since you indicated you would) should re-write the old section to bring it in line with policy. -Phoenixrod 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For your cool head, willingness to come to a resolution over at Talk:List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series#Merge The Tales of Beedle the Bard, and well-thought out reasoning, I award you the Special Barnstar, because, well, apparently Wikipedia hasn't invented a Barnstar yet for keeping a cool head and being reasonable. I have a ton of respect for you now. Congratulations! Anakinjmt (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks. :) Thanks for the barnstar—it's my first! I'm glad we could work out a compromise; it already looks as if Tales is attracting lots of attention with the auction today. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the previous discussion has since been redirected to Talk:Harry Potter universe, so here's a permanent link to our old discussion (because I don't like hunting for things that have picked up legs and moved): [13]. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phoenixrod! Your username, as well as the usernames of other inactive members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Lemony Snicket, has been removed from the inactive members list, as part of a process for making the wikiproject active once again. If you would like to continue to be an member (inactive or active), please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your username. Thanks! Clamster 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

I'm not wed to the link. If you want to remove it, okay. Please however find a new link to replace it. --evrik ^(talk) 16:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's already a link to Wiktionary. Why must there be an external link? -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my very first change to Wikipedia a friendly (and a deeply, oddly satisfying!) event. I think I have a new favorite hobby. SimonJester501 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! I hope your new favorite hobby treats you well. It can be deeply and oddly satifying, to be sure. Let me know if I can offer any pointers along the way. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phoenixrod, thank you for your message on Feb. 29. Sorry I just read your message last night. It's nice to have a friend who can guide me here. WestArmyComm (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)WestArmyComm.[reply]

You're welcome! Let me know if you need any guidance. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't know if you can help me, but you sent me a welcome on my talk page many months ago (thanks, and hello!). I haven't even logged on in a long time (long story), and really don't post unless something frustrates me, but I have an issue I hope you can resolve. On the talk page of William Clay Ford, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Clay_Ford%2C_Jr. (sorry about the goofy link), I made a response to someone making irrelevant claims and... well, see for yourself. Regardless of your views on the subject, it does not belong there. I realize that a talk page does not conform to the same standards as a main page, but surely this type of talk is not helpful. Let me know what you can or can't do. ThanksPolkapolkapoker (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can offer some guidance. I've had a look at Talk:William_Clay_Ford,_Jr.#Ford_and_the_gay_community, which I think is what you were referring to. I dug through the history and signed the post for its author, Ctownsend47. As for the post's content, you are right. Because the post isn't relevant to improving the article, you may remove it. See the talk page guideline, especially Wikipedia:TALK#Editing_comments. It's fine to remove the post if you like. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, for now anyway. Thanks for the help!Polkapolkapoker (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have like no life, or do you take this shit seriously? It was a joke for kids in my school and you ruined it so way to go asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFranchise94 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 May 2008

Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. You have one edit to your credit, and that's right above this one. Care to give me some more detail, perhaps in a more mature tone? And please sign your posts with four tildes (~). -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the welcome. I am a novice and chose to contribute because I like to fix up little problems such as typos. Trivial perhaps, but I hope helpful to those whose efforts are more focused on providing good content. Proxxt (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Nothing that helps the encyclopedia is trivial, so every little bit helps. Do as much as you are comfortable with, and keep up the good work. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of videos of the race and posted the links on the article's talk page. One shows the PNC Park scoreboard, taken at a game, and the other is the actual video that they use. I wish I knew where they got that one. I'd love to get last season's intro video (the Pirates of the Caribbean quotes one) and the history video they show before player introductions. DarkAudit (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the links. I don't know if links to YouTube work for inclusion in the article itself, but the links are good to have on the talk page. I think the current state of the article is acceptable with respect to the race's name. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 10:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That user appears to have a vendetta against you! -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If so, then I'll just have to ride it out, assuming that it still has some energy left. —SlamDiego_←T 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It"—nice. :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! By “it” I meant the vendetta. Granted that the editor and the vendetta will probably burn-out at the same time, but sometimes problematic editors evolve into better contributors. —SlamDiego_←T 02:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you meant the vendetta.... I merely found amusing the apparent ambiguity of the pronoun. It has been a pleasure. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

Thanks, I deleted it. It does look like it's some sort of small independent studio advertising itself. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the message you gave me just now. kindda still a noob at this. But anyway, thanks for the guidence! Jyanong (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It looks like you are getting the hang of Wikipedia. Don't be shy if you have any questions! -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phoenixrod, thank you for your welcome greetings and information for me. All the best!!!--Lampford (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr gut! Let me know if you have any questions. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about what i said last time. I messed up on that one. Sorry.

Are you the one that said...

atheism isn't the same as not legislating theism

...on the article about the Supreme Court decision on prayer in school? -Communismeffect (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a little while to figure out what you are referring to. I think you mean this edit on Engel v. Vitale. Yes, I wrote in my edit summary what you quote above. Why do you bring it up? Do you disagree? -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Supreme Court ruled that prayer in school was unconstitutional and should not be allowed. This is a sign that our judicial system is becoming atheist in not allowing school children to believe in God or to even pray at school. The Soviet Union had a government that told people that you couldn't believe in God, but we have a judicial system that is telling us that we cannot believe in God. Atheism has no place in society and should be illegal as it is a non-theistic belief. This is why students are failing in school, dropping out, commiting crimes, etc. is because the schools are not allowed to teach religion and are not allowed to mention religion at all. Our school system is atheistic because of the Supreme Court's decision. I blame the Senate, House of Representatives, White House, etc. too, as they have not done anything to encourage religion in the education system. [[The higher authorities in government say believe in us and we can provide you with everything. The power of government is granted by God, whether the government is religious or atheist. How they use that power is the government's fate and God shall determine whether they used their powers for good or evil. Sorry for the long paragraph, but i am one angry Christian in response to the government-supported atheism that seems to be happening these days. The United States Supreme Court is the government, since they seem to have the power to create laws instead of defining them. I am done.

Thanks. -Communismeffect (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Let me try to explain my position here. First, Engel v. Vitale did not "prevent" anyone from believing in God or praying on their own in schools. The case merely, according to Wikipedia's article, "determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools" (my italics added). The government isn't saying you can't believe in God (which would be state atheism, of course, and would raise an entirely different set of issues). Instead, the court ruled that the government cannot promote or establish one particular religion in public schools. Religion is still very much an academic topic, naturally. It's just not legal for the government to promote one particular brand of theism. As I said in my edit summary, atheism (which, to mind, explicitly affirms the nonexistence of God/gods) is not the same as not legislating theism (which, by contrast, allows freedom of religious choice).

In any case, I'm not sure why you are bringing my earlier edit summary to my attention now. As far as I can tell by your contributions, you have not edited the article before.

I do understand where you are coming from, and perhaps Potter Stewart would agree with you. But the rest of your comment is your opinion, and as such, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Feel free to believe what you do, and if you have reliable sources to back up your position, include them in articles. But your slippery slope argument about why society is failing would be considered original research. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little worked up writing that paragraph. The government has catered to some of these freethought organizations in the United States and has passed legislation supporting their views over those of religious views. There are many of them, and many of them are pushing for a atheist society. Even some political parties are big advocaters of atheism (ex. Communist Party USA) but the amount of religious suppression in this country is not known but there is a lot of it that happens behind closed doors. Your thoughts.

Thanks. -Communismeffect (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I am not sure what kind of response you seek. On a personal level, I feel that you may or may not be right, but without specific examples, I cannot comment usefully. In any case, for Wikipedia's purposes, our personal feelings are irrelevant to writing neutral articles that use reliable and verifiable sources. I'm sure that you could start a website or a blog if you want to provoke discussion on such topics. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenixrod- I see you moved the periods and commas outside the quotation marks in the Slippery Nipple article. I also see that you have studied British literature, which I suppose explains your British usage in this regard. I favor the American usage, no doubt because that is what I'm accustomed to. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the subject: Quotation mark Other than that, thanks for the edits. Squelle (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenixrod— I took the liberty of directing Squelle to the relevant section of the manual o' style. —SlamDiego_←T 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlamDiego, thank you for responding promptly while I was away from home for a few days. Squelle, I agree with you and prefer the American usage myself, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style is clear on the matter. I suppose there's something quite positive to be said for the more logical British method, even if it's less attractive for some readers. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pheonixrod. Remember me? How are you doing? Anyways i have a question. The movie Get Smart had a plot which i had put up. After a few days, somone took it down. I undone the change. Is he just vandalizing or have i done something wrong? Many people edited the plot before the guy took it down. Please check it out. Thanks....Jyan Jyanong (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I've been away from home recently. After poking through the history of the Get Smart (film) article, I think you are referring to this edit and your revert, right? That does look like a case of pure vandalism from an IP user. No worries; you aren't doing anything wrong by re-inserting the section. After all, a plot section is entirely appropriate for an article about a film. Happy editing! -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! just wanted to check with an experienced user.Thanks again! Jyanong (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you've seen the summaries have been shortened a lot, first by me quite some time ago, and now by Finalnight. And I guess you've also seen that the article is a failed GA, the issues being almost fixed now. There still are some however, do you now overall agree with the shape of the article? diego_pmc (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on the article and for seeking plenty of opinions on its improvement. Despite our differences earlier, I respect your consensus-building. I'll take a more careful look at the article when I have some time in the next few days. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's odd having a summary of Amazon's summaries of the stories (rather than a simple link), but at least they are shorter than before. I can live with the current shape of the article. It looks like it was hastily passed as a GA recently as well. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original four sections of comments

No, I've never checked my talk page until now. But to answer your question, I am making the proper grammar corrections. There can only be one "best." When referring to more than one person, the correct word is "better." Albert Pujols is either the best player or he isn't. He can't be "one of the best." "Best" is a singular word. "Most" is also a singular word. Albert Pujols is one of the better players. Many people make this mistake when writing and speaking.

Cardinals10WS (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Cardinals10WS[reply]

Are you serious? Okay, I'll try to take it seriously. You might want to read up on comparative, superlative, degree of comparison, and Talk:Degree_of_comparison#Question first, though. I understand that you think I am making a common error, but please realize that I think exactly the same of your recent edits, and furthermore I cannot find any reputable source that supports your position. Telling me you think I don't "have a good grasp of the English language"[14] isn't going to help civil discussion.

In short, yes, there can be only one best (because it is a superlative) ... but in the case we are discussing, that "best" is a group known as "the best players", a class to which Albert Pujols belongs. In contrast, better is a comparative; saying "one of the better players" implies a comparison which you are not making in your edit. Some people make the mistake you are making, but they are mostly sports announcers and never reputable academic writers. :)

As to your claim that When referring to more than one person, the correct word is "better.", I don't know where on earth you get that. Better is used with exactly two things being compared; more than two requires a superlative (namely best). This is the case with which we are dealing.

I also suggest that you look at WP:3RR. You have reverted too many times in a 24-hour period while engaging in edit warring. I have stopped reverting because I am trying to follow steps for resolving disputes, but this does not mean I accept your flawed reasoning.

Please revert your edit. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar#Degree_of_comparison_question about the better/best issue. As I strongly suspected, "best" appears to be the appropriate word to use in the Albert Pujols article. Further reverts without discussion may be considered vandalism. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still hear this term used frequently. A male person calls out to a female person, "Yo, woman!" Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Classic joke. It took me a minute to figure out what picture you meant; I use the Picture of the Day template, {{Pic of the day}}, and I don't check it every day. Once I glanced at Template:POTD/2008-07-24 I saw the yeo(wo)man in question. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your welcome message and the useful links - also for introducing me to my talk page. ;-)TruantMuse (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you learn about Wikipedia. Happy editing! -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen,

User:Communismeffect is my page, though i can't seem to find where to delete the

page, and i can't log in because i don't have that e-mail address anymore, so do you know

how to delete it, huh?

If you do, let me know, and don't have an attitude about it.

If you have a problem with me deleting my page, then talk to me about it.

Otherwise, leave me alone, ok?

You can do that. Thanks.

71.253.97.230 (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking an "attitude" with you (in fact, the reverse seems to be true...). User:71.253.97.230, please understand how Wikipedia works. I gave you standard template messages because you blanked User:Communismeffect and User_talk:Communismeffect. IP users frequently blank pages and vandalize Wikipedia, including user pages. Without proof (or even a claim, until now) that you are Communismeffect, I assumed you were simply vandalizing. After the second time, I wondered if you were editing without logging in, so I added this message to explain what the situation was. If you really are Communismeffect and you want to delete your page, I suggest contacting an administrator. You should probably look at a list of admins. Someone there should be able to tell you what to do next if you have lost your login information. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting things such as her coming from a poor family, and her being left when she was 6 months old, when you can do any amount of research and see that what you are trying to put on her page is obviously false. Might want to do your homework before you delete something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.206.23 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might want to read about reliable sources. Fansites are not appropriate sources of information. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was not trying to put false information on the page. I was reverting to the previous version because your edits did not appear to have an appropriate source. Do you have a reliable source for your additions? They may be correct, but adrianalimafan.net doesn't appear to be a good reference. I have reverted your edits again for the same reason. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a fricking interview she did! Tearsheet she admits she was poor, and also it's very very well known he left when she was 6 months old! I own www.adrianaflima.com we actually have contact with Adriana's friends and family and we have had some of her cousins over look all our info and they have confirmed it, You can look at our gallery where her actual friends and family have sent us images as well exclusive to our site! I will keep reediting it because I've been a fan for over 6 years! I know he left when she was 6 months old, she even said in an interview she came from a very poor family. So sorry if you don't take her WORD for reliable you've got problems yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.206.23 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the following links proove my point (it's even on IMDB) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0992596/bio http://www.adrianafans.net/biography.html hhttp://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/fashion/Adriana-Lima.html http://anythinghollywood.com/category/celebrities/adriana-lima/

And where she says she comes from a poor family http://www.superiorpics.com/adriana_lima/interview.html

And honestly how can you delete a perosnal thing where she says she likes to be in PJ's and watch Brazilian soap opera's when she says it in the video itself? I'm sorry that's incredibly stupid! she says it plain and simple in this video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3nNCQc9yEk

Also you might want to show exactly where you think she was 6 years old, it's obvious it's wrong but I'd love to know why you think that's right when it's obviously very wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.206.23 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dear 24.7.206.23, please try to remain level-headed and civil. Part of that is refraining from calling me names for enforcing very clear policies about using reliable sources. I am trying to assume good faith on your part, and I would appreciate your doing the same. The goal here is to make a good encyclopedia article. Because of Wikipedia's high threshold for articles that are biographies of living persons, any claim that is not clearly cited and verified is not up for debate; it must be removed. That is what Wikipedia's policies clearly tell us.

As for your own background, you may be telling me the truth. I am not trying to say that you are wrong. I am saying that until you prove you are right, uncited or poorly cited material must be removed from a biographical article like Adriana Lima's. Because you are an IP user, I have no way of knowing if you who you say you are (and if you are, you may have a conflict of interest in editing the article at all). I do not doubt Adriana's words on her own life, but I doubt what other people say are her words when I don't see proof that she said them.

Why do I not see proof, you wonder? Simply, because the sources provided are not clearly reliable. Please read that policy; the problem is not whether what you say is true, it's if it is verifiable in a reliable source. Let me put it this way: if I go to a site and click on the "About" section, I need to know who is writing the material or claiming to transcribe it. If it is a nebulous group of "fans", that is not a reliable source. The information may well be correct, but it is not verified in a reliable source. That is the problem with adrianalimafan.net. That is the problem with anythinghollywood.com. And so on. I think you get the point?

So what should you do? The solution is not to chew me out and call me stupid. It is to find a reliable source to back up your claims, which will solve this little argument quite nicely. In the meantime, as you find those sources, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~), and don't edit war.

I do not care if Adriana Lima was 6 years or 6 months old; I only care that a reliable source is used as a reference. I reverted your change to the previous version. That is all I did. Finally, on the matter of "[h]onestly how can you delete a perosnal thing where she says she likes to be in PJ's and watch Brazilian soap opera's when she says it in the video itself?", even though it is true, it's a completely non-notable claim. Mentioning it at all in an encyclopedia article gives it undue weight. This isn't a fansite; it's an encyclopedia.

If you want to discuss further, I strongly suggest taking it to the talk page of the article, Talk:Adriana Lima. Thank you. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new topic on the article's talk page at Talk:Adriana_Lima#Recent_changes. Let's involve other editors in the discussion. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who has changed something on the Ladytron article but I'm trying to track the person down by contacting anyone in the history who has a talk page. Previously the Ladytron entry on Wikipedia has accurately credited Ladytron's first singer, Lisa Eriksson, on their first single "He Took Her To A Movie." But this credit has been deleted multiple times from both the 'Singles' section and the 'Background' section. The information is factual and verifiable. The 2004 repress of 604 released by Emperor Norton Records correctly attributes this vocal performance. Do you know how this information can be saved from editorial omission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.225.245 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for, but I'd like to help. Have you looked in the article history? Find the editor who remove the information in question and leave a message on his/her talk page. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenixrod, I am working on a newspaper story on Wikipedia and have already talked with a few editors/admins. If you have the time, please shoot me an e-mail, ccadelago@sfchronicle.com. 72.37.244.20 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) C.C.[reply]

You requested speedy deletion of this article as a foreign-language article that exists on another Wikimedia project. However, checking tr:Özel ders indicated that this article did not exist on the Turkish Wikipedia. I believe the speedy deletion criterion does not apply in this case. Just being a foreign language article is not enough to qualify for speedy deletion; the article also has to appear on another project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Perhaps a different tag applies, then? According to User:Mach here, who appears to be an admin on the Turkish wiki, the article is a spam article that has been created on the Turkish encylopedia. The same goes for Evreka, also created by User:Istanbul ogretmenim. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

You are welcome--Mach (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude nice page but I do worry about ur editing techniques. While what i did was vandalism, I would appreciate my work to stay up longer so the junaita populace can see it next time.

Jugbug2 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Jugbug2[reply]

Sorry, my friend. That's the thing with vandalism: it's not looked on too kindly hereabouts.... You might try making a sandbox on your user page if you want to play around though. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough you got me on the Pharrell and maybe a bit of the Queen Marys thing was vandalism but the not all of it. the headmaster has changed holtam left and tim swain took over and the deputy heads have changed. the other was just a bit of a joke so did you really need to take it down??? Marxistic (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism does need to be removed, yes. You can still feel free to contribute constructively, of course (hint, hint). If you want to change the Queen Mary's Grammar School page, you should probably read up on the policy on reliable sources. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i was at the school last year and have mates there and thats my "reliable" source. also the school has a website you can check out if you want. Marxistic (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Wikipedia's definition of "reliable" is strict. Again, WP:RS is the link to look at. If the school's website has some of the (constructive) information you want to add, make sure to include a citation. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your reaching out to say hello. At least, I appreciated it after I realized that I wasn't in terrible trouble for breaking Wikipedia. That's always my first conclusion: I've broken something.

Those Wikipedia tips are useful. I am curious, though: did I do something specifically sort of incorrect? Or were you simply preventing any future mishaps?

mbevel1972 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes: that message at the top of the page (announcing a new message) is surprising at first, isn't it? To answer your questions, you did nothing wrong. When I see new users, though, I like to welcome them, even though I'm not an official member of the so-called welcoming committee. It's useful to have a few links on your talk page to get you started at Wikipedia. I saw a couple of your edits on Victorian articles and thought you might appreciate the guidance. It's not really a matter of "preventing future mishaps." So: nothing broken, nothing amiss. In fact, I am impressed that you are adding references and using edit summaries among your initial edits. Are you sure you're new? :) If so, you are catching on fast. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. -Phoenixrod (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me know if I can help you with anything else."

So here's a question. I've tried to find the answer on my own, but -- >shakes fist futiley<

When I look at my "watchlist," there's math. Or a score. Something. Here's an example:

(diff) (hist) . . John Ruskin‎; 12:41 . . (-5) . . 216.229.227.127 (Talk)

What does that -5 mean? Because on one of my Wilkie Collins edits, I saw a (+134) and was very excited, calling my mom and telling her that see, I don't need college; look how highly I've scored on Wikipedia. But then it plummeted to (-4). Is it because I'm an American, and everything about my country is plummeting? Because, dude: I know.

Finally -- thanks for being impressed. I am new; however, I spent a while looking the site over, seeing how others edit and comment. I didn't want to be the guy whose anecdotes about him all start, "'Member that guy? What a jerk." mbevel1972 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! That's the spirit. (Well, except for substituting a Wikipedia score for college.... You might want to check out the Wikipediholism test if you want a purely silly Wikipedia score.) Unfortunately, those little green and red numbers aren't scores; they reflect how much text has been added to or taken away from the article. I believe it's the net change in characters (rather than bytes or somesuch). Those numbers are useful on your watchlist for seeing which changes are major and which others are small. For example, if someone adds a paragraph or a whole section to an article, you'll likely have a high green number (+134). On the flip side, if someone blanks or vandalizes a page, it's often easy to spot because of the huge red number. Seeing those red numbers after a while feels like watching someone run a red light!

As always, my talk page is open if you have more "anything else." It's a pleasure interacting with users who are civil. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

If that's the case why haven't you removed the link to Matt Anderson's stunt website? If you are taking upon yourself to police wiki, please do so fairly and treat everybody equally, otherwise it may appear that you are biased or prejudiced towards some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.220.126 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you be more specific? Maybe point me to a particular article? Of course I try to follow policies evenly.

When I revert apparent linkspam, I am not obligated to read an entire article and examine every external link. If you have a problem with a particular link, I suggest taking it up on the talk page of the relevant article. In the meantime, please don't add one particular stunt performer's or coordinator's website for purposes of promotion. Please see Wikipedia's policies on spam and conflict of interest. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, edits like this blanking are a case of shooting yourself in the foot. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Stunt Coordinators', 'Stunt Performers' and 'Stunts', there are clearly external links to stunt people promoting their sites. Please check for yourself. You cannot fairly remove one link to a stuntman's site and allow others to do the same. By reinstating these links that's exactly what you've done. As I said before, (and to which you offered a suggestion that I should report it somewhere), there is a link to Matt Anderson which clearly promotes his business. There is also one for a non Union amateur who is doing the same. Please explain why you won't allow their removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.220.126 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you removed/blanked large sections of those articles, you didn't just remove external links. You removed links to other languages' wikis, possibly useful external links, and categories. If you have a problem with one particular link, that's fine: click the "discussion" tab on the top of the article and bring up the issue on that talk page. But simply blanking entire sections without explanation isn't acceptable. I'll take a look at the particular articles stunt coordinator, stunt performer, and stunt to see if Matt Anderson is being unduly promoted. There's no rush, so let's not get into an edit war. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I've trimmed those three articles' external links of the most egregious promotional sites. Thank you for alerting me to the problems. And thank you also for remaining civil. Please understand that many anonymous/unregistered IP users who remove information have an agenda that is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies, so it is considered vandalism when they blank sections without explanation. That's what you appeared to be doing, since you deleted more than just the links. Now that you've seen what fruit is borne of discussion, I hope you'll consider helping out the encyclopedia in the future. You could start by creating an account if you like. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am from the HOME FILM COMPANY In NEw York

I have attempted to Edit the pages of Liam Neeson, Mike Myers Susan Sarandon, Woody Allen, Frank Mc Court Rosie Perez, Alfred Molina Malachy Mc Court becuase they all appeared in our documentary HOME.

I feel it is imperative to put in this information into their sites for biographical accuracy.

So can you tell me what is the proper way to go about this.

Also how do i creat a page for our film, it has substantial reference material in media, tv radio , print coverage and festivals , tv showings and theatrical and dvd forms.

I in now way want to seem exploitivie but also I feel it is fair, we put this information in if other companies and other films they have done have been listed

please contact me on homethemovie@gmail.com

yours Sincerely

Alan Cooke

producer of HOME

www.homethemovie.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.207.178 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 October 2008

I believe you are referring to the recent edits by User:New york poet, whose contributions can be found here, right? I removed those edits because they were clearly promoting your film rather than adding significant information to those actors' biographies. It is not a matter of "biographical accuracy" to include every last detail of an actor's life; a filmography or a link to, say, the Internet Movie Database is usually sufficient in an actor's biography. In other words, if there is not even a Wikipedia article about the film (IMDb link, I believe), then it is unlikely that the information is critical to include in each actor's bio.

But please don't be discouraged! Wikipedia has several relevant policies that may help to answer your questions. It sounds as if what you want to do is (rather than insert the same material into all the actors' articles) create an article about your film. I suggest beginning with the guide to starting an article. If you can find enough verifiable and reliable sources that demonstrate your film's notability, go ahead and create your article.

Be aware, however, that it may be a conflict of interest to write an article about something that you are heavily involved in.

Please let me know if you have further questions. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply

I see what your are saying

but should i just wait for someone to put an article in? I am not sure when that could happen

Could you help me write an article?

If you type in

Alan Cooke and Home and Frank Mc Court and Liam Neeson you will see Tv reviews, interviews and media coverage ect from diferent parts of the world. we have 8 very famouse stars in our film,and the film has played in Lincoln Centre, Bam in Brooklyn, Academy of Arts and sciences, it has got a personal commendation from the mayor of new york, it has screening across America on PBS, it has won several awards, it has had the personl stamp of approval from all of the stars etc etc

go to www.homethemovie.com

could i get someone to write it?

Yours Sincerely

Alan Cooke —Preceding unsigned comment added by New york poet (talk • contribs) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, it's up to you how to proceed, but I'll try to lay out some options. 1) You could wait from someone else to start the article, which would avoid a potential conflict of interest problem. Of course, you might have to wait a long time. 2) You could request that an article be written by someone else, at Wikipedia:Requested articles. 3) You could post on Wikipedia:Drawing board to discuss if you have enough sources to write a good Wikipedia article. 4) You could simply write the article yourself. I think Home (2006 film) is the logical title, given Wikipedia's naming conventions. If you write the article, yourself, however, note that it is not enough to cite only www.homethemovie.com. Rather, you need independent (third-party) sources that are reliable and verifiable, and those sources must demonstrate the movie's notability. The specific guideline for determining if a movie is notable can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (films). To be honest, I'm not sure if Home is notable enough to pass the film-specific notability test. If it's not notable enough, the article will be deleted. But if you can demonstrate notability as defined in the links I've given you, then writing the article yourself is probably the fastest way to get it done. Whatever you do, make sure you have a collection of books/full-length articles/reviews/etc. to cite.

If you decide to write the article, I'd be happy to look it over for you. If you want to work on the article without risking its being deleted quickly, you could simply write a draft on a user sub-page at User:New york poet/Home (2006 film). -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

I reformatted as requested.

I am about to make a suggestion for a compromise solution.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it's high time everyone tried to fix this instead of yelling at each other. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck by this as I was driving home and thought it would be an interesting approach. Then I thought of the vehemence with which some editors defend that page and figured I'd just mention it to you and you can do with it what you wish. Lipograms omit words, but "E" is not a word. It's a letter. "I" is a pronoun, "a" is an indefinite article... but "E" is not a word (it's a symbol in math and physics, but not a word). Therefore mentioning that "Gadsby omits the words containing 'E'. " still maintains the lipogram. It's a technicality but it's true. Padillah (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting try, to be sure. I'm guessing that someone on the Gadsby talk page would either say E is a word (since it's in the dictionary?) or simply rail against the dying of the lipogram. But hey, if it's the only way to get in a mention of why the novel is notable without violating WP:EGG, I suppose it's reasonable. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

(copied over from my talk page:) Thanks for this. I'm glad you found the essay interesting/useful.

Meanwhile, as it happens, I feel that you and I are perhaps more on the same wavelength than many on that talk page. Mind you, I'm trying to steer clear on the whole. When I get some time to read a little more of the book, I hope to develop the article somewhat.

And so you teach writing? One frustration I have on the Gadsby talk page is that few people seem to realize the point of such constrained writing. It's not to write badly (of course); as I understand it, at least, it's to make you think much more about your writing and word choice. It's like practising swimming with one arm behind your back: if you can make your way through the water with such a constraint, imagine what you can do when the constraint is lifted!

Anyhow, this is one of the reasons I like the idea of writing a lipogrammatic article. It's an interesting exercise in self-reflexive, thoughtful writing. When it's done well, of course. (As I've said many times, at present it's not done particularly well.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been steering clear of Gadsby's talk page as well (although at this point in the semester I have precious little spare time anyway). Thanks for this comment on the page; I really have tried (since August!) to remain civil and productive in the discussion in the face of some rather strange comments from various positions on the lipogrammatic spectrum. I completely agree with you that the article needs improvement—I just don't see how to change much in the short term until the lipogram snafu is sorted out.

Your perspective on writing constraints is quite logical, and it seems to be in the spirit of Wright's introduction to the novel. I don't understand why Wikipedia should go further than Wright, though, by omitting from the introduction what we might call a statement of purpose that explains the lipogrammatic exercise clearly.

Your swimming metaphor is apropos. Many moons ago, I made a comment using boxing to argue something similar to what you say: if the article could be written as a lipogram, imagine how much more can be done with careful word choice when the restriction is lifted. I was arguing at the time for a complete removal of the lipogram (which I still support as an ideal), but I've become open to the compromise of allowing some of the main text to be a lipogram. The introduction is a deal-breaker for me, though: I have tried and failed to come up with a way around having a plain English introduction. I think we do readers a disservice if we aren't up-front with what is important about the book. If we throw in Wright's full name and a statement like "the book is notable because it avoids the letter E", I would be relatively satisfied.

I'm in grad school for literature. So yes, I teach writing, mostly for first-year students; it pays (some of...) the bills. I have tried to root my comments on Gadsby in effective rhetorical practice. Which brings me back to my comment on your talk page: I've taught about Wikipedia and discussed its place in the world of today's students, but I have yet to take the plunge of assigning editing. Not sure I'm that brave. :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to wikipedia! I look forward to your editing and contributions. Thank you. Fortyniners9999 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, thanks? I've kinda been around a while, but I appreciate the sentiment. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I noted that you removed an external link from the AFI 100 Movie Quotes page. The link was to www.best-quote.com.

I appreciate your efforts in removing 'spam' from WikiPedia, however I assert that this particular link is not spam. The link has received 2,500 clicks over the past six months. From these specific clicks the average time spent on the site is 04:30 minutes, with an average of 8.38 pages viewed. This suggests that the user found the link useful and relevant.

Please reconsider this edit.

Regards best-quote.com webmaster (note domain recently changed to TheMovieQuote.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.175.63 (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up and for being so polite. I don't dispute that your site might be quite interesting and useful, but unfortunately it is not relevant to the article: it has nothing to do with the AFI list. That's why I removed the link.

Wikipedia's spam policy contains this snippet: "Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place." I'm afraid you're trying, perhaps with the best of intentions, to promote your website. That also means you have a conflict of interest. Feel free to bring the link up on the article's talk page, but I doubt you'll make much headway. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• my original comment

Why did you delete the links from the video games to the Video Game Directory? It is a legitimate link. It links baseball video games to a Baseball Video Game list that provides more information on the games. It is no different than any other of the external links from the pages. I do not sell anything from this page, thus it is not spam. I'm not sure I understand the problem. Please help clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrudy (talk • contribs) 21 February 2009

Why did I delete the link you rapidly added to roughly 90 articles? If it's not patently obvious, I'll explain briefly. Your link is a generic link, and it does not contain significant information about those articles' subjects. It's simply a link to a (self-published?) list that adds nothing to the existing Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, which says to avoid linking to Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Additionally, the Boston Amateur Baseball Network is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, you may have a conflict of interest if you are involved with the site and are adding links to it.

Please read the spam policy. Here's an excerpt from #5 on how not to be a spammer: Don't gratuitously set off our spam radar. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching, specifically Adding the same link to many articles or many wikis. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun. Adding links across our other language editions is a bad idea too.

Again, you added a questionable link to over 90 articles. That's pretty clearly a no-no.

I think the links I provided will explain more fully why it's not a "legitimate" link. I hope you understand now. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you at least find my post funny? 71.225.235.179 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this vandalism, then no. Sorry. Maybe if I were still 12 I would, though. Or it were on a blog instead of on Wikipedia? It's just ... that joke has been done to death. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I'm without heart, though. See User:Phoenixrod#Funny_edits for what I would find funny. I think you'll see that replacing "Balzac" with "Scrotum" is unskilled labor compared to the humor I've collected. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenixrod, you have my sincere apologies if, on my first ever contributions here, I seem to have broken the rules. The last thing I wanted to do was promote my site. That's close to irrelevant to me. What I did want to do, however, was show that in each of those articles there were better solutions to creative problems than were shown in this encyclopedia. My perfect pangrams, palindromic verse, and trisection breakthrough, in particular, are regarded by experts in the relevant fields as amazing achievements. It seems wrong to me that a summary of human knowledge such as this should not even be aware that the examples given have been bettered. Still, I am sorry. And I guess I understand. I'm also aware, though, that it is pretty normal for creators and discoverers to announce their achievements, so I'm not ashamed of my blunder.

Thank you for your very polite, warm tone. If you do answer, may I ask you to do it on my own talk page? Thank you.

PS. Oh, and I should point out that in my trisection submission I clearly indicated an extremely reliable source: the March 2007 issue of the Mathematical Association of America’s College Mathematics Journal. My site was just given to give a greater insight into the subject to anyone who wanted to look into my validated method of trisection.

David345589 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• my reply

• my original comment

No problem. :) I'm going to try to clean up a bunch of baseball articles, starting with the Indians and the Brewers. So far, in what I've seen from sourcing Gallardo and Jorge Julio's article, the problem is more that there's simply no sources cited than the info itself is actually inaccurate; the key is just citing any and all sources where appropriate. So, I guess what I can say is...thanks for the thank you note! One (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish more people took your initiative to improve baseball articles. Keep up the noble work! -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• my original three comments

"I am asking you one final time to explain your reasoning for including those tables."

It's because he isn't more than only a hitter, he is a Gold Glove fielder, and his page wouldn't be complete without those small amounts of information you have this strange desire to delete. Just because they usually don't appear in another player's pages doesn't mean they can't appear on any pages, EVER. You have this misguided perception every page has to be exactly the same with exactly the same amount of information and not one bit more. Get over it already. and quit trying to delete the important information on his all-around play and record. Is that too much to ask? I hope not. Katydidit (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add one other thing: I already made a big concession to your somewhat valid complaint about the length by deleting that huge Miscellaneous Statistics table and trimming other parts of the various sections on that page. Why isn't that enough for you? And YOU are the one that initiated (started) this revert stuff on your own, not me. Katydidit (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to begin. I understand that Pujols is a great all-around player, and I am a big fan. But we are writing an encyclopedia, or should be. I agree that just because one article is set up a certain way does not mean that all others need to follow the same mold; please don't mischaracterize my words. And I appreciate that you trimmed some of the article.

But that seems to be where we diverge. It shouldn't be a big concession to cut out minutiae such as All-Star Game stats. The article failed a Good Article review, with detailed suggestions for improvement, most of which I agree with. I followed one suggestion by removing three tables that seemed extraneous to me and to the reviewer, Wizardman. I'm puzzled how you seem to blame me for "initiat[ing] ... this revert stuff". What does that even mean? You reverted my changes, and I tried to get you to discuss the issue. I'm trying to be very reasonable here. Please don't attack paper tigers.

I hope we agree that Albert Pujols should ideally be a featured article. GA status is well below that level. If you want the article to improve, though, ignoring why the article failed to became a GA is not a good first step. Let's move our discussion of the article to the talk page. There's a current thread at Talk:Albert_Pujols#Too_many_tables. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind message. In keeping with your preference to keep discussions in one place, as it were, please see my reply to you on my talk page. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 27 September 2009

Full discussion is at User_talk:OrangeDog/Archive_2#The_Legend_of_Neil. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeff Passan. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Passan. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a response to your false claim and your opinion-based notion on what an 'opinion' is , which makes you a hypocrit. I also asked how I can help clean-up the article, although it states NO personal opinions and ALL verifiable facts with DOZENS of links to MAJOR websites. If you took 5 minutes to research it, you would see that. Rather than stating your own opinion (i HIGHLy suggest you get a life. This website must've convinced you that your tiny opinion matters.) People like YOU ruin websites like THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you take four or five days to reply and then expect me to see your message in less than 24 hours ... on a weekend? And I'm the "hypocrit" [sic] with no life? Wow. Please end your personal attacks right here, Massmarkpro.

Incidentally, what is an "opinion-based notion of what an 'opinion' is"? Not messing with you; I just don't know what exactly you think I'm doing wrong, especially when I'm quoting Wikipedia policy to you and you have nothing specific to back up what you say. I don't see how we can progress to improving articles until you tell me something specific you want me to do or explain. The onus is on you to justify additions that have been called into question.

I'm not sure exactly how calling a little-known poet with a new article as significant a humanitarian as Mother Teresa involves "NO personal opinions and ALL verifiable facts". Perhaps you can provide, you know, actual links to these "major" websites that you claim exist to prove that Apollo Poetry is a notable humanitarian—such that he should be listed in the humanitarianism article?

Anyway, let's keep this discussion on one page, please: User_talk:Massmarkpro#Apollo Poetry. Thanks. -Phoenixrod (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the humanitarian! I'm talking about placing that the article is UnBalanced. I didn't even WRITE the article. I made one slight edit to it. The ENTIRE article is verifiable with links to MTV.COM for gods sakes. What about the article is unbalanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 23 February 2010

Well, I was originally talking about your edit to the humanitarianism article, as well as other similar edits you made to other articles. But which article are you talking about now? Which website? What MTV links? When you click edit to reply, notice how I am using square brackets for diffs (links to particular edits), and two square brackets to wikilink articles. You should do the same to help other editors know specifically what you mean. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you even going to give instructions on what needs to happen to make it 'balanced'. Have you found ANY thing on the website that's opinion-based and not factual with VERIFIABLE evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 24 February 2010

I might be able to help if you were clearer. What is the "it" that you are trying to "balance"? What article is in question? What website are you talking about? Give me some actual links so I have a context.

My comments to you on your talk page were pointing out that in general you should be careful adding Sevan Aydinian to articles he probably doesn't belong in. I am pretty sure you are talking about something else now, but I can't figure out what.

Incidentally, I asked you to keep this discussion in one place, on your talk page, but you have since deleted that discussion (an edit which, by the way, shouldn't be marked as minor). Since you are still posting here on my talk page, I will continue the discussion here. I like to keep conversations readable on one page. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]