User talk:Evilphoenix/Archive 07


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.  

It's not like I'm happy with everything on Wikipedia, but I still think the project is worthwhile, and bigger than the petty conflicts that some of the users on it get into. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you were the closing Admin for the page on Zora. This might also interest you (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild). I haven't looked through them so I do not know if they are all like the Zora one.--Jersey Devil 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * MfD them. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild was not deleted. 66% for deletion is within what could be called a supermajority. Additionally, I'm not sure the one uncivil Strong Keep should have been counted at all, and the other keep recommendations did not indicate why they felt they should trump WP policy. If the group must be kept, is there another way to address the complaints about it that have been made? Esquizombi 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I generally go for a slightly higher consensus ratio, generally around the low 70's percentage wise, and this one didn't quite make it there for me. It might be on the low end of Delete for some Admins, but for me, it's not a "supermajority". AfD isn't about majority, it's about consensus, and I didn't feel there was a strong enough consensus to delete. Taking out the Strong Keep would have made it 72 percent, which to me is right on the razor's edge, and with what I considered a low voter turnout for such a potentially highly controversial MfD, I didn't feel comfortable with letting a subjective view of one editor's vote turn the tide. I'm going to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting in situations like that. As far as addressing your concerns, first, see my outside comment on the recent RfC Striver filed on Jersey Devil. Next, try to get level headed Administrators involved and aware of what's going on. I'm willing to help, with trepidation, since I'm trying to avoid conflict, but as an Administrator I'm pretty much going to run into it fairly often as is. Lastly, just because the page happened to survive this MfD doesn't mean it can't be brought back at some point in the future, or you can't bring other things to MfD. I would actually say try to get more people to participate in the MfD. Unfortunately there's this real stigma about the idea of soliciting people's opinions on stuff for fear of spamming, which I personally think is ridiculous, but if you're simply contacting people to ask for their input rather than asking them to express a certain opinion, that's less problematic. Anyway, I'm getting long winded, but feel free to keep in touch if you have any questions or need any help. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense.... The supermajority I got from Consensus which states it is generally 60% to 80%+.  If consensus among admins as to what a supermajority is is now higher than 66% that page should probably be changed. Esquizombi 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And see Supermajority which states "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)." Esquizombi 05:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (Although that's only a proposed guideline and applies to AFD not MFD, which I'd overlooked.) Esquizombi 06:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

mfd
First up, don't worry. The guidance to remove it to the archives means to the actual archives, not the closed section of the page. We just tend to leave them on there a couple of days to let people have a look at them, but no, the guidance doesn't mean they have to remain a further 8 days. I used to archive them as soon as they had 8 days on the page, meaning I'd archive as I closed unless it was a speedy close, which I would leave on the page the full 8 days. Another user, um, Titoxd maybe, he tends to leave the contentious ones in the closed section a while but move any no-brainer to archives straight away. So there's no hard and fast rule. I apologise for the instruction creep comment, I misintepreted your archive notes.

I hope I've cleared it up. Basically, feel your way into it. If the page feels too big, archive some closed discussions. It's great to have another pair of hands on the page, and you've done some great work on it, the transcluding of the front matter was a bloody good idea. If you can rewrite the guidance better, go for it. Steve block talk 07:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

family guy portal
Sorry for re-making the family guy portal, I did not know it had been previously deleted. however I would have liked some warning first. --bdude 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You might have noticed the deleted edits mention before you created the article. But apparently you didn't, no big deal. Cheers. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry at my RFA
I saw you had a response to a reply at my RFA about the sockpupptery by Mcfly85. I can safely, 100% guarentee that both Stockdiver and Araxen who voted at my recent RFA are both Mcfly85.

Since December, Mcfly85 has wiki-stalked me. Every RFA I have attempted with exception to my first nom when I didn't know him, he has intruded on my RFA's and has blatently lied by using sockpuppets and was found out by Fred Bauder via CheckUser.

RFA #2 he voted three times as Mcfly85, Rock09, and Sigma995. Rock09 and Sigma995 were block indefinantly but not Mcfly85 (results from CheckUser showed they were the same person). My third RFA he voted as Mcfly85 but he was blocked for disrupting the third RFA. At the fourth nomination he voted as Fthepostingquota. Fthepostingquota was blocked indefinantly via CheckUser finding him out as Mcfly85. Amazon10x also voted at that RFA and is a sock of Mcfly85 but a CheckUser was never ran against him and is still editing as of now. To see a full list of people who are Mcfly85 see: Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Mcfly85 for evidence.

Furthermore, I urge you to look at the history of my current RFA were it shows Stockdiver and Araxen exchanging edits on my current RFA. Those are my reasons for suspicions. M o e  ε  17:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also saw your comments "all I see are small article edits until he arrived at this RfA". I would urge you to look at some contributions of the blocked editors to see a similar pattern of typo edits andminor fixes and then random assurtions into my particular RFA. M o e   ε  17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Araxen's only contribs are to your RfA, so that can be discounted on that basis alone. Stockdiver on the other hand does seem to have some level of legitimacy as an account. A Sockpuppet it may be, but even then it only crosses into the realm of sockpuppet abuse if he votes on your RfA with more than one account, so if McFly85 were to cast a vote on the RfA, then that would be a case of sockpuppet abuse. I suppose it would also count if Araxen and Stockdriver are the same person, but again, this has not been proven. So, even if Stockdriver is a sock, as long as he's the only sock that votes on your RfA, he's entitled to his one vote. However if it can be proven that Stockdriver is a sockpuppet of McFly85, I think a block is in order if there's a history of sockpuppet abuse there. I think the main issue it comes down to though for RfA voters is not the fact that your RfA is or may be under sockpuppet attack, either now or in the future, but how you respond to it. I think the better solution would be that if you suspect a user voting on your RfA is a sockpuppet of a user that you have conflict with, the first approach would be to leave a message on that user's page asking them point blank if they are a sockpuppet of the user you suspect. If they admit to it, then you have evidence you can bring to the RfA, or better case, e-mail to another user you trust and ask them to bring it to the RfA, so that you don't color yourself by doing so. If the user denies being a sockpuppet, then you have that denial as evidence as well. Then the next step would be to go to CheckUser requests and ask for a sockcheck, citing diffs of evidence of prior sockpuppet abuse in your request for CheckUser. Then if that check reveals evidence for a sock, then point that out on the RfA (or better yet get a friend to do it), linking to the CheckUser report. What I would not do is assume that a user voted against you because of alleged sockpuppet action, and then post a note to their Talk page alleging sockpuppet abuse with no evidence. At the most you'd post something to someones Talk page politely asking them to reconsider your nomination, but not specifically mentioning the sock issue, and then if they go back to the RfA they might notice the sockpuppet evidence. Being under sockpuppet attack doesn't count against you in an RfA, in fact to some it might be a bonus. Making unproven allegations about other users, questionable though they might be, is not helpful. I hope this explanation will help you understand what a better approach to dealing with this situation might be. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading my message but it's useless since I withdrawn my nomination. One more nomination without Mcfly85 is all I ask... M o e   ε  19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's entirely useless as I think there is something for you to learn here and take with you as you move forward through your Wikicareer. Like I said, there's a better way you could have approached this, and if I'd seen something more like that from you as opposed to what I did see, you'd have had a support vote from me. As it was you still could have changed my vote if evidence had been provided that backed up your allegations. For what it's worth I'm more than happy to be of any help to you that I can as a mentor and advocate, especially if you feel like you are under attack from other users and sockpuppets, but that's up to you and what advice you'd want to accept from me. Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I noticed that you have wrote on my talk page. I do know the user McFly85 personally. We both were in a computer lab checking out wikipedia one time and we talked about how the quality of certain areas of articles were a little lacking. He also told me about his tattered history on wikipedia, where he had his user page edited, without consent, by SWD316/Moe Epsilon. Then, someone else vandalized SWD316's user page, and put the blame on mcfly, which I'm fairly sure he would not do. Mcfly did make a few other accounts during a RFA as he was worried that if SWD316 would be given moderator powers, that he would be unfairly banned. And if you look at Mcfly85's edit history, he has made a wealth of good edits, mainly proofreading issues, but also a lot with NPOV, stub sorting, and even creating an article every once in awhile. In my opinion, even with all the alleged sockpuppet abuse, mcfly85 has been a strong asset to wikipedia. If it wasn't for this user, as lot of previous errors and formatting mistakes would have gone unnoticed, and would harm the quality of this site. He had no intention of becoming a moderator, but always intended to improve, even if only slightly, any article that was lacking quality. I feel bad that the actions of Moe Elipson have pretty much caused mcfly, my friend, to lose trust in this site and he has since retired his name. He did come back under another name, and made some great edits, but then, was unfairly (IMO) banned for being a 'sockpuppet used abusively". There is a difference between being a sockpuppet and trying to use a new name to get a fresh start.

But I am not mcfly85. I am fairly new to being a serious editor on wikipedia, and I was just checking some various parts of the site. I then noticed on the RFAs section that this familiar name came up, and I saw mcfly's screenname in the questions answered by Moe Elpison. I really didn't want other users have what happened to mcfly happen to them, so I voted opposed, which I am allowed to do as a user. I do not feel that I "unfairly influenced" the voters, I think the voting results would have been the same weather I had voted or not. And I have never heard of Araxen, and I did not create or am involved with that user. That vote should not have counted.

I just wanted to explain my case to you. I also question that Moe Elipson's user page may be in violation of the no personal attacks policy. He calls McFly85 some very harsh names, such as a stalker. I think that content that bashes other users should be removed, there is no place for that anywhere. But thanks for asking, I hope to keep making solid contibutions to the encyclopedia, it's a fun hobby. Stockdiver 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, but I don't buy your story for a second. I find it highly unlikely that you just happened upon another Wiki user in a computer lab, whom you happen to be profoundly sympathetic to. You also speak using terms that implies you know more about Wikipedia's workings than I would expect for someone who has been editing less than a month. However, if what you say is true and if you are editing Wikipedia from a similar location as McFly85, it is likely that your IP addresses will be similar, if not identical. When situations such as that occur, it is more than likely that you will be treated as one user, because of the similarity of your IP's. Please carefully read Sockpuppet Policy and make sure that you are not in violation of this policy, and do not engage in behavior that could be perceived as a violation of this policy. Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I can bet a trillion dollars that I am not Araxen, I have no idea who that is. That is the only way that I would have violated the sockpuppet laws, which I did not. And the McFly85 username is inactive, and I do not intend to use that. I am not a sockpuppet and if you look at my edit history, there have been no bad edits, nor will there ever be one. I just want this whole mess to go away and I hope to edit without fear of being banned.
 * Furthermore, I do not appreciate the attacks that Moe Epsilon has made on his user page, they are in clear violation of the NPA policy and he should be given a punishment. Stockdiver 01:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement "And the McFly85 username is inactive, and I do not intend to use that." Implies that you have the power to use that name, implying to me that you are in fact McFly85. If you edit with quality then you don't have reason to fear being banned. If you don't engage in problematic behavior, then you don't need to fear being banned. Your word choice and your wording makes me suspect that you are Mcfly85 and are trying to start with a new username and therefore a clean slate. If that's the case, fine, if not, fine, just be aware of the sockpuppet policy and what it entails. I'm the first person who will protect and defend a user that demonstrates good faith efforts at improving themselves as contributors to the Wiki. I will look at Moe Epsilon's user page. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at Moe's User page, I'm not profoundly impressed with his choice of commentary but he doesn't name people by specific names, and he's not saying anything about you by name, so I don't think there's anything that really needs doing. I think he's taking a Wikibreak at the moment, so I can certainly ask him to reconsider his User page once he gets back. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"have another break"
hugh? could you try and give a more meaningful blocking summary when you're blocking sharedips? I can't even tell if this is an ip block or an autoblock--172.128.57.115 00:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reading the block log. User has been repeatedly vandalising my Talk page. Best thing to do, if there's another user using that IP innocently, is for the User to go ahead and sign up for an account, that way their good edits and the vandals bad edits won't get mixed in together. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much impossible, the ip in question is a 205.x.x.x (AOL anon user), and I can't exaclty type "have another break" into the block log, and having a username doesn't stop you from getting hit by ip/autoblocks, the only way I managed to post here to ask this question was by intentionally shifting IP ranges, another reason AOL autoblocks are pointless, the vandals probably know how to do that too, generally AOL IPs don't get long blocks because the only person that ever makes happy is the vandal--172.128.57.115 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the log, which I had to track down, it was an IP not a RU autoblock, and you knowingly gave it a 24 block?--172.128.57.115 01:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since AOL assigns IPs by page, not by user, you're created a set of pages that AOL users can't edit for 24 hours, one of which includes one of the reference desks, when you block an AOL, you should understand that any articles that have been productively edited by AOL users, are now "off limits" to them for the duration of the block--172.128.57.115 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, registered users who get this block will have no idea what's going on, like myself they'll just get a message saying "have another break" which is completly useless--172.128.57.115 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough, I'll make sure to be more specific in the block text from now on. By the way are you Pete? If you're not that's cool but if you are then I'll know I'm talking to the same person. Yes, I knowingly gave an AOL IP a 24 hour block. I fully stand by that decision. The fact is that there is a vandal operating from that IP. We have no way of knowing how many people are working from that IP, you yourself may have nothing to do with the vandal, or you may be the vandal. I have no way of knowing. It's true that if you sign up for a Wikipedia account that you run the risk of being hit by the IP block, however, the advantage that you do get is that if you are not the vandal, then if you sign up for an account, all of the non-vandalism edits that you make will be attributed correctly to you. As it stands now, assuming that there are legitimate users and a vandal operating from the same IP, the legitimate edits are getting mixed in with the vandalous edits. Having your own account would prevent a vandal from gaining any legitimacy gained from your hard work, and it will also give you more credence if you're coming in to apply for an unblock if you have an actual Wikipedia username with a legitimate edit history. My suggestion to you is that since you seem to have found a workable IP address at the moment, you go ahead and sign up for an account. I'm not going to honor any unblocking requests that come from or for a vandalous IP address unless I have some ability to make a distinction between the users editing from that IP, which a Wikipedia account would allow me to do. Thanks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me...
I'm supposed to be taking a wikibreak, but I HAD to respond to the bull that was posted here by Stockdiver and I am proposing a CheckUser. If you look at the edit history of your talk page you will see edits by 68.180.1.141 which is a non-shared IP range proven to be Mcfly85's and his sockpuppets per his last CheckUser. M o e  ε  05:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Point me to the link with the Checkuser information. Don't just make the claim. If you do get a checkuser check on them, feel free to let me know the results. Also, please tone down the level of the rhetoric. Using strong language and such won't help you, but it will hurt you. You should always try to speak with civility and calmness. It's hard, I know, I don't always succeed at it myself, but it will be better in the long run if you are the polite one, even if those around you are very rude. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That was about the most calm voice I could speak in. That's somewhat the reason I'm also leaving Wikipedia for, people assume bad-faith with my tone too often. I often get messages/oppose votes on RFA's like the one you just left above. I'm not going to start a RFCU on him. If the Wikipedia community decides to check him out, it's going to have to do it without me.


 * And if you wanted more evidence look at the contributions of the IP listed above. You will see that his IP was editing in December and just so happened to edit my past RFA Requests for adminship/SWD316 2, you know, the sockpuppet infested one... M o e   ε  05:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the most calm voice you can speak in, you're absolutely right to be taking a Wikibreak. I'm not saying that harshly, I fully believe in the value of WikiBreaks, I just took almost the entire month of February off and it was quite helpful. I looked back through the user's edit history, and I agree, it's very suspicious. The story that he's giving me (see above) is that he isn't Mcfly85 but knows him, and they're editing from the same computer lab. Personally, I don't really believe it, and CheckUser will probably show a connection, which while it fits with his story, still doesn't convince me that there's not some sockpuppetry going on. Nevertheless, the issue that I personally have with you is not whether youre under a sockpuppet attack but how you respond to it. I don't like your response, and if you're seeing a pattern of notes on your Talk page about your tone, that's probably a hint that you need to make an adjustment. Again, a break might help you gain some perspective on it and help you come back and be able to keep calm, but ultimately that's your decision. I've warned Stockdiver to be very wary of the Sockpuppet policy. If I see evidence of abuse of it from him, I will not hesitate to take action. Likewise, if you have issues from this point forward with poor behavior directed at you by other users, you may bring it to me and I will be happy to assist you in any way I can, but I'm also looking for you to work on your tone and civility. You are the only person that has control over how you react to stressful situation, noone else. I don't assume bad faith on your part, and I don't think you're acting in bad faith, but I do think you need to recognise where you need to make an adjustment. However, know that I fully believe you are capable of making that adjustment, and I look forward to seeing good work from you in the future. Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I did as requested and made a placeholder userpage in place of the past reversion that was "uncivil". About future work here, I don't see myself editing Wikipedia full-time in the foreseeable future. M o e   ε  05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ( T / C ) 05:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Please don't take my preceding edit personally, I've been meaning to put that up there for a while now and obviously you didn't know. Congratulations on your new mop, enjoy, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The crisis
Yes, I originally copied the page so that I could send the link to one of my friends whose birthday is March 31 (close enough to April Fools', I thought), but then I thought, Yes! This is perfect! And you're a copycat. Thbbbbt. H e rmione1980 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :-P &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Awww. H e rmione1980 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * *blushes* &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... agreed, I haven't talked to you in a while. How's everything? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, just fine. I should have gone after your user page instead. Oh well, there's time yet to get other people ;-) &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And I thought you might like to know that I nearly clicked on that nice "You have new messages" bar at the top of my userpage this evening. Falling for my own practical jokes now. H e rmione1980 01:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85
Just to let you know, I e-mailed Fred Bauder about my situation since he has dealt with CheckUser's for Mcfly85 before. The results:


 * Stockdiver - confirmed to be Mcfly85, editing from 3 IP's.
 * Araxen - Not Mcfly85, but abusive editor none the less

Fred Bauder has added Stockdiver, Araxen, and Tony fanta to his talk page alerts. I guess Tony fanta was another sockpuppet. Tony's edits consist of vandalizing my user page.

Regards, M o e   ε  21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * can you provide me a link to where Fred says this, other than your report? Thanks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He e-mailed me. You can verify what I said by visiting Fred's talk page where it know lists Stockdiver and others as his notes that he added himself. And if you want more conclusive evidence, you can e-mail him yourself or drop a message at his talk page. M o e   ε  23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really tell me anything though, all I see from him is that he added the users to his Talk page to keep an eye on them. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I want concrete evidence (I'm looking for something like a Diff where someone says that there's sockpuppetry). &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll e-mail the full length conversation between me and him to you now. M o e   ε  00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got mail. M o e   ε  00:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What Moe says is true, however no one should draw conclusions from my "notes" section. Fred Bauder 01:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not drawing any conclusions from that, which is why I'm trying to get some absolute confirmation on this. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think he was refering to me drawing conclusions from the notes section. But I think that Fred saying it is hard enough evidence. And I am sorry for putting pressure/stress on you when I shouldn't have. M o e   ε  01:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not stressed at all. Ive got a user running around crazy trying to change the colors on Harry Potter characters infoboxes insisting his way is the standard way and screaming at anons who are simply trying to revert the colors back to how theyre defined in the WikiProject and he's calling them vandals and stuff. That is stressing me out, but only slightly. But you, no, not at all. Just another day's work. See my recent e-mail to you and Fred. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You got more mail. :-) And try not to be to hard on Nathan. M o e   ε  01:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Refs on J. K. Rowling
Ow. Just ow. I know that may be the new ref style or whatever, but it's horrid. First of all I don't like it because it places all the referencing text in the article space, making it an absolute mess to read in the edit window. Second it took 43 nicely alphabetized references and expanded them out to 63 unalphabetized references, many of them duplicated (as some sources are cited multiple times). I'm sorry to revert you on that, but I really think it was much nicer the way it was, and I'd ask you to not do that again on that article. Thanks. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry you don't like it. I was just updating it to use the new Footnotes system using cite.php. Well, anyway it's easy to revert so no harm done I hope.  jaco plane  04:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd point out that there is a way to get rid of the duplicate references, just use the and then reuse that. But even though that would only leave 43 references, they would not be alphabetical (though I'm not sure why that is preferable, I prefer listing them in order of appearance in the article) and they would still be in the article space. Although of course the ref templates are in the article space as well. The main reason I'm posting is I was wondering if you have any other articles you would object me doing a similar change to. I am slowly going through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ref and updating the articles to the new system. Cheers,  jaco plane  11:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Extending an olive branch.
I would like to propose a truce.

I was under the impression the HP characters infoboxes were standardized yellow so that's why I was edit-reverting. Now I know. My information was incorrect. It was a clear misunderstanding. Please understand my actions were in good faith, not to destruct and edit-war for the sake of it. I genuinely thought the anons were vandalizing (and still do sometimes ie nonsense colours like black on black as an admin pointed out)

You could have presented the information to me without jumping on me and attacking me on Drini's page, but I think you were acting in good faith on my talk page, as you did correct me (thank you). As I did screw up, I apologize and I'd like to call a truce.

You, however, are not making it easy for me by demanding "Do not change the colours on this page again". You could use a bit of common courtesy and saying please (being an admin as you are, this doesn't mean you have to do away with common courtesy). As I indicated earlier on, I genuinely thought I was acting in good faith. Try to relax, please. I did screw up, I admit it and I apologize.

We can solve this like adults without attacking each other, or we can fight every chance we get, which is not conducive to a positive atmosphere here on Wikipedia. I choosse the former, do you?

Thanks. — nathanrdotcom (NathanHP) (T • C • W) 05:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor Ravenclaws
Hi Evilphoenix, sorry to bother you but I thought an admin ought to look at whats going on at Minor Ravenclaws, check out the history and you'll see all the aggresive edit summaries. Hope you dont mind me bringing this to your attention, its just that I thought you would be the ideal admin to speak to due to your involvement with the HP project. Anyway thanks. Death Eater Dan    ( Muahaha ) 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a closer look at it next round through my Watchlist. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter s-protection
Hey buddy, I noticed that you s-protected Harry Potter on April Fool's Day, likely to deal with the April-Foolery that the page was already seeing early on in the UTC day. Now that April Fool's has come and gone, do you think it's appropriate to remove the s-protection, or do you want to continue leaving it in? --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, I tend to be lazy about removing sprotection simply because I am not a huge fan of anonymous editing, but I can remove it when I next wander over there on my way through my Watchlist, unless you do before I get there. Which you can do now, since I RfA'd you last time you asked me to unprotect a page ;-) &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I beat both of y'all to it. :-P H e rmione1980 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well aren't we just the HP trio today. PS I could still use some help from you guys over at USC. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 21:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny
Tee hee. Well, maybe people will pay more attention to if it's fake or not now. :-) M o e   ε  22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to know I'm being observed. :-) M o e   ε  22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Whew. One hundred and ten thank you notes done. Saved the best for last. :] I really appreciate the nomination and support. I actually wasn't sure how it would go and might have waited to apply if you hadn't suggested it again. It was great to receive support from so many people I have worked with and even those with whom I have disagreed. Says alot for Wikipedia that people can disagree, but still work together. Thanks again. --CBDunkerson 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome. I was pretty impressed by how it turned out, you got about three times as many supports as I did. I guess that means you get to do three times as much work. Cheers! &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply
With respect to NSLE's question, maybe its my interpretation of the question but there really is no way to 100% confirm if multiple accounts are even the same user, even with checkuser. SharedIP's and ISP allocation pools make it very very hard to determine if its the same person. Assuming it was possible to confirm that the editor was using the sockpuppets in an abusive way (the definition of abusive is another question all within itself) it really calls for multiple minds to think. ANI is a great place to make a note, there are some cases where one admin can act alone but there are a lot where some sort of consensus is the best way to go. -- Tawker 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I meant that you would know as much as can be known, ie a CheckUser had revealed a shared IP with the editor, and no other editors...something that's fairly clear. Thanks for your thoughts. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask (splash tells me I might have the most questions of any RfA in recent memory, I'm sure a few more can't hurt :).I would leave you a message thanking you for your vote but that big box at the top of the page scares me away from doing that, so I'll leave it at that :) -- Tawker 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually manual thanks don;t bother me, it's the big goofy smileyfaced sign templated form letter ones that I'm not fond of. I've been here almost a year now and obviously that makes me kind of old school in Wiki-time, cause back in the day people didnt used to do that silliness, then people started bothering to thank people for voting, then it turned into this nonsense we have now. Hmm. I think it's time to clean out my dentures and go sit on a rocker on my porch and yell at kids for throwing their frisbee on my lawn. ;-) &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In that sense I hope it does pass, I'd really have to hate to do manual notes again in 6 months or whatever I chose time (though I'm leaning towards minor barnstars for doing the little things like voting, I don't think anyone's done that before. Don't forget to be fairly nice to the kids, after all, they're only kids (and at least they're outside and not vandalizing Wikipedia (but on the other hand, they could be adding constructive stuff to Wikipedia :) -- Tawker 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are not actually childen outside. Instead, there is a cranky old man who walks his dog. Every day. Clearly the world has truly been horrible to him, because he comes by screaming his head off cussing about the various shit that he has to deal with. His friend walks along with him, and agrees vehemently a lot. I can't understand a word they say, but they are angry. And daily. I wish my block button worked in real life. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 23:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this one for a few days, that seems odd. I think I've found an inexpensive solution, earplugs (or an ipod) and a book (or a wiki) - just don't blast the ipod to ruin your hearing :) -- Tawker 05:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfa/Tigershark error
You accidentally voted on the RfA after it had been closed. I wanted to draw this to your attention in case you discovered that your vote had been reverted, and though "whoa?" Thanks. -- Jay  (Reply)  01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

plainlinks to imdb external links
What was the rationale behind adding plainlinks to, and why not do it to all the imdb templates, or other external link templates? We're talking about it on Template Talk:imdb title. Thanks, Fitch 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you


For your hard work on Harry Potter-related articles, and for founding WikiProject Harry Potter, I hereby award you the Original Barnstar. You are free to put this on your user page (or not), as you desire. Congratulations! I'm a little surprised that you haven't received a Barnstar for this already... --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Aww, thankee. I'm teh flattered. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes at the side
Hey Evilphoenix, I saw Hermione1980's user page where she has userboxes going down the right side of the page, and she told me you designed that for her. I tried to imitate the source of her page on my own, but the word [edit] that shows up next to each section is moved down to the bottom of the page, being interrupted by the userbox tables. (That will make a ton more sense if you see the page.) She told me to ask you, because she didn't know. :-) Any assistance would be great. Thanks! --Fbv 65 edel (discuss 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the userboxes are transcluded to her page from User:Hermione1980/Templates. Does that help at all? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a page called User:Fbv65edel/Userboxes and inserted it with braces (as ) into the place where I wanted them, but the [edit] button still moves to the bottom. You can see what I mean at User:Fbv65edel. --Fbv 65 edel (discuss 21:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll look here in a bit. Right now I'm working on figuring out some things in the private Wiki I just installed for myself on my computer (feels all L33t). &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Take your time. --Fbv 65 edel (discuss 23:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Situation of administrator abuse
Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here  Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Offsubject, what does no RFA thank yous atop mean? Arights 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll try to take a look at the situation and see what's going on. In the meantime, I'd suggest you not edit anything in the furry realm for right now, see if you can find another area to work in while we try to resolve this. The No RfA thanks just means I don't want anyone posting Thank Yous for RfA voting, since I'm active on RfA. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're asking Evilphoenix? He's one that totally abuses his administration rights. This user makes false assumptions on Wikipedia without proof, and then just hap-hazardly does what he wants to do. My opinion "Go ask someone else". 160.91.231.124 11:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the anonymous trolling, and if you have anything specific you'd care to discuss with me about any of my Administrative actions I'll be willing to listen, but if you're not going to do anything more useful than make baseless claims against me, kindly take your vitriol elsewhere. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kathleen
Thanks for you warning in my user talk at pt:Wikipedia. I moved again that page =). 555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al case. Raul654 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi.
Hi. I'm Daniel5127 as new member of Harry Potter Wikipedian. Execuse me, May I ask you about something? I would like to ask you about the article Cho Chang. I saw that Cho Chang's blood purity is Half-blood or Pure-blood on article about Cho Chang(Ravenclaw Girl). So, Do you believe that Cho is whether Half-blood or Pure-blood, or may I just leave her blood Purity? Anyways, I will appreciate you if you send me the message. April 11, 2006, 19:13, Daniel5127
 * I dunno. Why don't you try and see if you can find some information from an outside source that would help you figure that out? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too, I still don't know about Cho's Parentage. when I checked article on Cho Chang, someone was changed her blood purity as Half-blood or Pure-blood. Is it considered to be vandalism? or not? It was last year July 30, 2005. I hope you can send me message, and What Banned-Star would be good for? Because there're many Harry Potter Wikipedian got stars. thats why. Anyways, Have a great day with Wikipedia. April 12, 2006, 20:22. Daniel5127


 * No, it's not really considered vandalism unless her blood purity has been clearly established one way or the other. Unless that's so, pretty much anything is speculation. I have no idea what a Banned-Star is. So, I'm guessing English is your second language? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 06:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

ZOMGWTFBarnstar!!!!
Well, that was very unexpected. Thank you very much! Now all I need is the +5 Defender Barnstar and I'll be set. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to the caption of an apparent lack of vandal-fighting barnstars, check out the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, designed by yours truly. It doesn't have any Holy Avenger abilities (unfortunately), but it does have the advantage of being designed by an extremely talented individual. ;-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, hahaha... gotcha, thanks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries.
Please see my comment here. I don't know if you remember, but I did post a truce on your talk page some weeks ago, so again I remind you to please assume good faith before you go accusing me of being incivil. I really don't appreciate the accusation, and I think you should apologize. "Since when" was a perfectly valid question, perfectly serious and should be taken for what it is - a question, not being rude/insulting/inflammatory, etc. Many many people on WP can tell you I don't make attacks in edit summaries and try to calmly work out my differences with people (and involve outside help to mediate if I have to).

Please think, I'm a member of Esperanza which promotes general well-being and co-operation. Why would I attack someone when I can calmly talk about problems and try to work them out? I am perfectly knowlegeable about the no personal attacks policy, I'm not some n00b who knows nothing.

Honestly, if you're not sure of the meaning and tone (as this is the Internet and tone is completely lost) behind my words, please ask before drawing conclusions that may be incorrect. Thank you. —    nath  a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of assuming good faith, this is simply an issue of your word choice, directed at a new user, could have been better. It's better to be overly polite in your word choice then to rely on others to interpret your wording the way you intend. We only have our words to communicate, with no vocal inflections or body language to give additional clues as to meaning. Something that could be interpreted mildly in one situation could be interpreted poorly in another. While you may feel that your wording "should be taken for what it is", it still remains that it could be taken poorly. Further, saying "Congratulations, you have just inspired me to add on my talk page guidelines:" is also a less than ideal word choice. Using "Congratulations" in that manner seems a bit sarcastic to me. Again, that may not be your intent, but it's important to recognise that the message received by a reader is just as important as the message intended, and those two are not always the same thing. I feel that you were a bit uncivil, and I don't intend to apologise for pointing that out. Demanding apologies from other people is rarely effective. The fact that you are a member of Esperanza is irrelevant. I understand that you are not a new user, which is precisely why my expectations for your level of civility are so high. If I remember correctly, you have previously applied for Adminship. Admins need to be particularly civil. If someone asks you to be more concious of your civility, the best response is to just say "Ok, I will", and be done with it. If you feel like you had in fact been civil, then just keep doing that, only be more civil. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 03:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Logged Out, Unsure Why
Evilphoniex do you know why on some pages I am logged in and on some pages I am not? It's irratating.ForestH2 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Perhaps you could try logging out, then going to the login page, then clicking on "remember me" when you log in. Other than that, I'm not really sure. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New info
I checked out your score sheet, for this, and I have some new info that may be beneficial.

New page patrolling - I have something like 100+ deleted edits; all speedies (i.e. new pages patrolled).

For topic discussion - See this - it was a conversation about the Jay Leno article.

Participation in article talk pages - Well, I am no Harvard prof, but there was some talk here; here; and here.

Thanks. -- Jay  (Reply)  02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Easter



 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.