User talk:MrFizyx/Archive2

Archive1, March - July 2006

WCVG
How odd. When you go to their website, they are still live-feeding urban gospel over the internet...but for whatever reason, it's not actually their current playlist over the AM band (like most radio stations). Live and learn. Thanks for removing it after my reversion. ju66l3r 15:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is interesting, I wrote the the WCVG stub based on an article that I found and then made my edit to the list without being aware of your revert from the day before. I'll have to tune in next time I go through Cinninnati and see what's going on, but there seem to be several articles, so I don't know what to make of the Live365 station.  Thanks for the note. -MrFizyx 17:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the star!
Just doing what I can to keep the lists "crap-free"! Cheers, Dubc0724 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for providing a calming exchange of ideas and giving me a moment to reflect when editing a topic about which I am very passionate.L0b0t 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you also for the honest dialog. -MrFizyx 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Heres how its happened, all POV aside. It started with my talk page (check archives), then lead to deletion review and WP:ANI and directly to Aaron Brenneman's talk page. Somewhere in the middle of all if this, there was activity at WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling's talk page, and the DRV was closed by Tony S and conversation moved to both Tony's and Cyde's talk page. The conversation now, as you know, is localized to Bdjeff's talk page. I hope this helps in locating a larger picture for you. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping to connect the dots. Now I can at least understand some of the reasons why you are all getting so excited.  I have no position on all of this and really no reason to get involved.  Perhaps, though you could all work on raising the level of civility in your discussion.  If you can do that, I'll stay back on the sidelines.  Regards, -MrFizyx 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for reference...You know theres a problem when approx. 6 admins are on someones talk page telling them to stop. Comments can get out of hand, but this is as civil as it gets. Try counting how many times hes been asked to stop, across all of those pages. This is a very sensitive issue for Bdjeff, and I've already backed a suggestion (made by an admin, I think it was Yanksox) for him to take a break. He wouldnt take that advice. SynergeticMaggot 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, and your piling on isn't helping. Are you asking me to escalate this further, or are you gonna back down and start doing the right thing?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether your opinion was shared by no one or several admin there was no need for your to become uncivil to those of us who were seeking an explanation . It would appear that this issue is rather sensitive to you as well.  Perhaps a breather is a good thing for you us all to consider.  If you do plan to continue having it out though, please take it somewhere other than my talk page.  Over and out. -MrFizyx 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to see that happen, either, and I'm sorry I left the comment. Just don't take his word for it, judge whatever you feel the need to judge for yourself.  You'll find quite the difference.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies
I didnt mean to snap at you yesterday. I had figured you for an experienced editor when you jumped into the conversation like that. I was in fact sarcastic, but I wasnt uncivil. Digging for information is one of the things you're gonna have to learn on Wikipedia. But anyway, if you run into trouble, need help (with anything), or have a question, please drop by my talk page and I'll be more than happy to help. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks I think. Perhaps, however, you were more accurate to assume that I was being lazy than chalking things up to a lack of experience.  I certianly know how to read through one's contributions.  BDJeff is very active, however, and not knowing in advance the cause of the accusations one is left sifting through a lot of extraneous stuff.  It appears even you're memory of the situation was not perfect .  Still I don't blame you for judging me that way.  Sometimes I prefer to play dumb rather than become aggressive; I get better results from people.  It seems I was not unsuccessful!  The tone over at User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff is much better (at the moment at least) and I'm hopeful that folks are being a bit more reflective.


 * You know, even if you think he's way off the deep end on this WP:SNOW business (I still don't have any strong feelings about the essay OR the way the discussion escalated), hopefully you realize that he does do a lot of positive work here and is someone you'd like to keep around. Thanks again for your help and I imagine I'll see you 'round the 'pedia. Cheers! -MrFizyx 18:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have nothing but good things to say about him outside of the previous discussion. Memory leaves when the head begins to boil. Again I apologize. It was a long day. But again, if theres anything I can help you with, please drop by. Regards. SynergeticMaggot 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Attack
I would like to thank you for making it your top priority to attack me and my credibility. I especially enjoyed your irrelevant arguement which I took as an attempt at attacking my credibility when you posted a comment urging people to look at my profile. I take it you wanted them to see the Miami Heat information that was there, which I put there after they the NBA Finals. However, in your attempt to try to make me look foolish I noticed some remarks on your page on about the same level. While you urge people to look at my page because there are what you would think of as dumb remarks there, your page has one particular comment saying you think you are a fish. Maybe you also see the irony in this? While you say that my posts lack supported commentary, I urge you to prove me wrong and find supported commentary proving my claims are false. It would be very hypocritical of you if you can't. Again, I would just like to thank you for the lovely ambush, and for any way you would like to attack me in the future.

Yours truly,

The03Era15Strong

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --- this is my warning im required to put here i guess, before i can submit a request for investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by The03era15strong (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry but I am lost here. The03era15strong, you are saying that MrFizyx committed a personal attack because he told people to look at Miami Heat information on your userpage? I am sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.  People have all sorts of different stuff on their userpages. Leuko 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The03era15strong, I am sorry that you feel hurt by the deletion debate going on related to your article about the zip code 43228. I did add links to your userpages and contributions as the author, but that is not unusual and it allows other editors to form their own opinions rather than take anything I say for granted.  That is not an attack.  I have never read the article on the Miami Heat and I don't follow basketball or edit any related articles, so I really don't know what you are talking about above.  You should realize though that it is not the burden of other editors on Wikipedia to prove claims are false.  Information should only be added to articles if it can be substantiated by reliable sources.


 * I see that you have made a claim against me on the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. I welcome you to pursue that if you must, but I do think that in the end it will be found that you have not been attacked.


 * I do have one other unrelated question for you. There is a user, The04era15strong, that I assume is also you.  Is that correct?  If not we should ask that the account be blocked so that it is not mistaken for you.  I am curious as to why you have a second account. -MrFizyx 14:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow-up note: Claim of attack removed since no evidence was provided.  -MrFizyx 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that would be me. I made that at one time when I couldn't remember the password to The03Era15Strong, so I created a new account, but later I remembered the password so I never use the The04Era one. I understand what you are saying in all of this, but I do not see why pages about ZIP Codes matter. It doesn't hurt anything that they are there. And about the personal attack thing, feel free to explain to me why exactly you asked that people look at my user page while in a deletion arguement, that is the only part I don't understand. Anyways, I will be going now, I look forward to your response.

-The03Era15Strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by The03era15strong (talk • contribs)


 * I provided links to your userpages and your contributions . When I look at your contributions I find an edit history that is troubling.  It is sometimes hard to tell which editors are intentionaly being disruptive and which ones are just behaving in an unsual way because they don't yet understand the culture on Wikipedia.  I had not yet decided which I think you are, so I was leaving it for others to decide.  I really don't think anyone would care much one way or another about that stuff on your userpage.  People pretty much put whatever they want on their userpage.  I should note that one other editor has looked at your contributions and determined that 43119 should also be considered for deletion.  It would seem I'm not the only one who finds your work "troubling". -MrFizyx 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

well then whats troubling about my edits? honestly, im not even sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The03era15strong (talk • contribs)
 * Well, you haven't exactly been responding very well to criticism, none-the-less, I have made some productive edits to a few of the articles you have started and left some tags requesting citations in a few places. Feel free to leave me a note here if you don't understand why these edits needed to be done.  I think the best advice for you would be for you to go back and reread your welcome note.  It offers links to helpful articles and tells you how to properly sign a talk page. -MrFizyx 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Delmhorst and Foucault
Hey there. Were Kris and Jeffrey keeping things completely quiet, I would gladly respect their privacy and not reveal that information. The source, however, is not another fan, but rather Jeffrey himself in his newsletter (available for signup at all his live gigs). He wrote, "In June my wife Kris Delmhorst released a new record titled Strange Conversation." Seems reliable and public enough to be included in their articles.

Tracy Grammer
I confirmed it through e-mail to Tracy, and consulted with Amgine (A Foundation worker) regarding its inclusion to make sure it was dealt with appropriately. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The confirmation was not from a disgruntled webmaster - it was definitely from Tracy herself. As for the claims... I can see why she would not want to make a press release, or do an interview, or otherwise make it a big deal. And WP:BLP offers clear guidelines on how to incorporate information offered by the sources - to my mind, all the criteria in BLP are met here. Phil Sandifer 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that there's no way to get another source that wouldn't be callously exploitative. I can wholly understand why Grammer does not want to turn Carter's sexuality into an "announcement," but why she also wants to make sure the record concerning him is accurate. This seems to me a way to achieve that. Given that the information is reliable, I think it's needless to question it. Simply put, I have serious issues with the questioning of material that is not actually in doubt - particularly because of the poisonous effect it can have on many topics. (My usual example being Spoo - a featured article that has virtually no sources that don't violate WP:RS, but that is nonetheless 100% accurate, and nobody disputes that. Because WP:RS was written to cover a handful of articles that are pathological, not the general case.) Phil Sandifer 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You and I aren't really in a position to give this issue the kind of analysis it deserves. If I wanted to find a source that wasn't "callously exploitative" I'd start by talking to Matt Watroba who repeatedly wrote about the duo for Sing Out!, including a very nice obituary for Carter--but clearly I'd be in the realm of original research...  If Grammer posts something on her own site, then we will have a statement that we can clearly attibute to her and we won't be the ones to "break the story."  We need to be patient until we can follow someone elses lead.  Without this information we can still write an article on Dave Carter that is as good or better than any other article thats out there.  Asking you to follow the rules and be patient isn't an attempt to poison anything.  If Tracy really wants this out she'll find a way. -MrFizyx 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whereas this - reporting on Grammer's exact claims - is not original research. It's consulting a primary source that is well documented. It's far from the first time we've added information from a talk page to an article - Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger, Greenlighting hoax, and Wikipedia all rely on Wikipedia as a source, and that's just off the top of my head. To use process to remove information that all parties agree is true from an article is necessarily a misuse of process. Phil Sandifer 16:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so exceptions have been made. We cite wikipedia when we write about wikipedia.  This is not about wikipedia. -MrFizyx 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
PhilSandifer just notified me regarding this about a half-hour ago. I would strongly disagree with the phrase "unusual edits", as Ms Grammer has in fact confirmed her edits to the talk page (thus satisfying the publication/public statements of verifiability.) However, the phrasing is questionable (should be ascribed to the reporter, such as "New York Times reports..." "White House spokesman said..." or in this case "Ms Grammer stated..."), or it should be removed altogether and await the publication of a biography.

Back to the "unusual edits", WP regularly scoops news organizations in its reported facts about articles which are relevant to current events. I can recall an occasion when the exec officer of CBS News contacted Mr Wales about a death announcement because the timestamp of the Wikipedia article showed the update was made several minutes before the announcement by the hospital to the press. Such 'unverifiable' facts often become verifiable soon after. Perhaps I or another contributor could request Ms Grammer to blog about this facet of their relationship, so as to prevent Wikipedia citing itself. - Amgine 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I don't think "unusual" was a poor word choice.  You must admit that citing a Wikipedia talk page is not standard practice.  I also feel that what is verified to one editor may not be easily verified to all readers.
 * Your solution, however, could work very well if Ms. Grammer chooses to "go public" in such a way. In this sensitive matter I would rather we wait to follow her lead. -MrFizyx 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure I would agree regarding the unusual edits. I'm aware of several dozen cases where information came from an article subject or their personal organization and was posted to the talk page of the article in question. This is particularly the case with politicians, but also at least a couple of companies. This really is the preferred method of interaction&mdash;bringing an issue with an article to the editors involved with that article&mdash;rather than either editing the article themselves or contacting the Wikimedia Foundation regarding every content disput to a BLP. (Try to keep in mind that WMF is dealing with 5 million articles on 7 projects and 200+ languages, rather than merely (!) the English Wikipedia.) I am certain that there are hundreds more examples I am not aware of as Wikipedia is not at all my primary project. - Amgine 04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lila Downs and Paul Cohen
I suppose I consider it common knowledge. A large scope of interviews, reviews and websites refer to Paul Cohen as her husband or "esposo" (search for "Lila Downs Paul Cohen" on google and you'll find many different independent sources stating it). They have been together for many years know, do we really need to see their marriage certificate to raise their relation above "romantic envolvement"?.Maunus 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the thing before I got around to do it. Maunus 13:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You bet!
Still learning. Thanks.CApitol3 01:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wailin' Jennys
Thanks for the info and the link — interesting! 40 Days is a great album. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Because of your input on previous music AfDs, I was hoping you would take a look at this article and provide your thoughts on whether or not it meets WP:MUSIC its latest AfD. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Homebrewing versus Home brewing
[Copied from User talk:Mwalimu59]:

I don't think the page is being vandalized. I think User:82.18.18.215 is most likely User:DavidP02 not logged in. I think this is a newbie trying to do a page move without having found the "move tab". (See Talk:Home brewing) I really don't care much which name is chosen, but we need to avoid having two copies--so you two should try to work this out. -MrFizyx 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've temporarily solved this problem by merging the new content back into Homebrewing (which I now believe to be the rightful name) and reverted Home brewing back to a redirect. We'll see how it goes. -MrFizyx 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should work. I haven't really been involved in the exchange before now, and was just acting on the assumed consensus that "Homebrewing" was the preferred title (it is also my preference, but if the consensus is that "Home brewing" or "Home-brewing" is better, that's fine with me).  I've seen instances before where someone gets a stubborn "this is how it is" streak on something and keeps editing an article accordingly, despite protests and reverts by others, and it looked this might be a similar case. --Mwalimu59 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

HeartattaCk
I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT ( s-s-s-s ) 17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hey MrFizyx,

I just wanted to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed unanimously with a final tally of 38/0/0. I appreciate your trust, and will do my best to uphold it. Don't hesitate to let me know if you ever need anything. — TKD::Talk 05:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Cutler
I wouldn't consider the edit you reverted to be vandalism, just sort of a useless edit. --Awiseman 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi wiseman, Perhaps you are correct.  There was some funny business going on at the same time with the "Mike DeWine" article by the same editor, and an IP who may likely be the same person.  Hence my quick labeling it as "rvv".  Other editors have since had a similar reaction to Regginmd's edits. -MrFizyx 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, fair enough. --Awiseman 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

thank you
I know I am not perfect, but I cannot stand the closed-mindedness of the majority of editors on this project anymore. Thank you for all your assistance along the way. Maybe I will be back in touch one of these days... the best to you! PT ( s-s-s-s ) 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Amigo, its been a wild ride. You've done some good work here and saved a few.  If it has stopped being fun though, then maybe you can think of better ways to pass the time.  Good luck.  Leave me a note if you return. -MrFizyx 00:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage deletion
Never heard of it done before. Feel free to resubmit, tho, since I've never seen it before, I doubt any other sysop would do it either. Ask at WP:ANI. It's a common sense thing, really. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was surprised when I had seen it done in the past. Not doing it makes more sense to me I suppose.  By the way, good to see you've got your sysop powers back. -MrFizyx 00:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx for the kind words. Are you working as a physicist or are you teaching physics somewhere? Just curious. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Grad school. I could relate to that. I had been quite a fan of physics in high school - but majored in accounting and finance and never studied a lick of science after high school. I went to Stuy in NYC, where my AP Physics C teach was previously a professor at West Point. He was my total hero, an amazing teach. We were the best science students in the best school in NYC - and he took cruel pleasure in stumping us with ridiculous problems and smiling as he watched us flail. I remember his midterm. I think everyone failed. There were several Westinghouse semifinalists in the class. It was the total highlight of my High School career. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

assault with a deadly weapon
Hello. You asked for my references so I dug out the old Illinois criminal law and motor vehicle handbook guide (the ILCS). 5/12-1 Assault (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of recieving a battery.

5/12-3 Battery (a) A person commits battery if he intentonally or knowing without legal justification and by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual

5/12-2 Aggravated assault (a) A person commits an aggravated assault, when, in committing an assault he:(1) uses a deadly weapon or any device manufactured and designed to be substatally similar in appearance to a firearm, other than by discharging a firearm in the directon of another person ... (and the statute continues with many subclauses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILFoxtrot (talk • contribs)

ghost of parsssseltongue
Thanks for your note, Mr. F. I may pop in now and again to revert vandalism on pages on my watchlist. I see Chowbok didn't waste any time putting Ryan Avery up for deletion as soon as I was gone. Another reason I hate this place (though not everyone in it). :) Parsssseltongue 00:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)