User talk:Phagopsych

Welcome!

Hello, Phagopsych, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Uri Davis, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * I am not passing judgement. He has been called that many times by the media and, up to a point, he is kind of proud of it. Any insult by the Daily Mail is probably a good thing! --Phagopsych (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to reinsert your edit to this page and Useful Idiot if you add a full reference to something that supports the assertion or  should do the trick. The big concern with biographies of living persons on Wikipedia is that they are verifiable. Sorry if I was a bit quick off the mark.

FrankFlanagan (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, mate. I will try to dig out the exact quote off the net. to be honest, it may be best if I incorporate it into the body of the article and provide some background. Cheers. --Phagopsych (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk Response
user:Jayron32 has decided to remove your response on the reference desk. You may discuss this on the talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ich bin ein Berliner
I was indeed showing good faith by not claiming actual vandalism. That's why it said "possible" vandalism. Understand the difference? Also if you are not aware, there has been a number of attempts in this and other articles to remove much of anything that even uses the word Palestinian. I was simply noting this and seeking to stop any unbalance that has been systematic and on going. On a side note, asking someone to assume good faith while making accusations of POV is a bit ridiculous and counter intuitive don't you think? I've seen your work and your better than that. I look forward to any collaborations in the future. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. As explained on my edit summary, "Avoiding POV redirect", the word wall clearly does not conform to a neutral POV. This is why it is not used for the name of the article itself (please refer to the lengthy discussions on the article talk page about this issue plus Israeli West Bank barrier). I have no idea if you were the first person to introduce the photograph to the article or not (in fact, I never acussed you of doing so). Nonetheless, the word wall when applied to the barrier is POV and should be avoided.
 * On the contrary, edit summaries as yours ("undoing unexplained removal marked as minor when it should not be. possible vandalism") are not acceptable. Labelling someone a vandal because of a content disagreement is highly inappropriate (under WP:AGF or WP:BITE at the very least). Thanks, --Phagopsych (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Ah now I understand. You consider the word "wall" to be POV. That's not necessarily how I see it but I see your point and see no reason to turn it into a an ordeal.  Lol no I certainly did not introduce the photo and I not once mentioned that you accused me of such.  Though I must say that particular photo and it's caption have seemed to received much attention in comparison to many others. And again see the above.  No one labeled anyone a vandal. The word "possible" was used much as the plethora of bots use it.  I supposed the "false positive" line would have made it more clear, but the fact still remains. No straws here btw.  There was no content dispute nor was one ever mentioned. As I stated this particular kind of topic and related subjects has been receiving a great deal of systematic vandalism and unfortunately many have seemed to become a bit wiser over the years and mark them as minor in order to survive a bit longer.  Again sorry for any confusion.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh hey man it's no problems. I've found that over the years I've come to be a bit of scoper for those systematic types of stuff.  And you're doing just fine. Yeah it's unfortunate, but I can't really take the "minor" filter out of my list anymore because too many use that as a way to get their crap through the more diligent watchdogs.  It's all good.  Like I said I respect your work and hope to see the good work continue.  If you need help or have questions just let me know.  I don't add much or create anymore- spent prolly a bit too much doing that over the years instead of enjoying wine and women lol.  Now I do more...check work I guess you could say. Drop me a line anytime. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Lumber Company and related articles.
Checked over recent work as requested. After the once over, it all looks good to me. The environmental movement is not my area of expertise but I am aware enough to see that you do good work. Thank you. --Norcalal (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Antalya Monkey.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice
Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)