User talk:Phoenix79/Archive 3

Re: Bose headphones
The article looks good. I just don't know why these "Bose-bashers" want to have a piece of the article. While I liked the way you refined the article a lot, there are only two minor things I want to discuss about:


 * Bose Aviation: The "Upgrade Program" can be left out without vandalizing the article (but I'm not going to make edits as of this time unless it's to clean-up vandalism), but that's only from my personal standpoint. Literally an article should talk about "things in general".  "Upgrade Program" is somewhat an advertisement so I personally would ditch "Upgrade Program", but that's completely up to you.


 * Bose and American Airlines: I would condense the American Airlines section and the QuietComfort (various) sections. I'm not going to edit this right now (like I said before), but I'm considering condensing both Bose QuietComfort and American Airlines so that it would sond more condense and concise.  Again, this is from a personal standpoint.

Otherwise, I really liked the new collapse coding you did on the article. However, the QuietComfort 3 Headphones is still my recommended Bose Headphones. I tried out the Bose IE "Earbuds" and they sound OK, but they don't cancel out sound&mdash;you won't be able to demo out the IE due to sanitary reasons.

I'm just recommending what to do right now, but as of this time, I'm not going to make any radical edits. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't ask me why they act the way they do. All I have done is try to make this a great article just like everything should be on wikipedia. I think you have a good idea about putting the American Airlines in the QC section. I don't think it would be vandalizing the page by removing the upgrade program. I would only think it might interust people who have them that is all. Maybe editing it might be better?
 * I have actually managed to try out the IE's at a Bose store. They let me try out a pair (they clean them after each use). Here is how I rank the new triports 1.OE 2.IE 3.AE Personally I'm not fond of in ear headphones but they really did sound great and were more comfortable than I expected. They also said that since there are 3 fittings if someone has a pair and it sounds like it has too much bass they need to use a smaller size to give it a more natural sound. You should go back and see what you think.
 * Personally I do like my QC's more and I did notice the lack of noise canceling tech on the IE's. I'm sure that Bose will come out with the QC4's later that will be in-ear noise cancelling headphones. That way they will have 3 standard versions (OE, AE & IE) and 3 noise cancelling versions (OE, AR & IE). If I was to guess it would come out next year and be $50 less than the QC2's so $249 (there is a $30 difference between the triports and a $50 difference with the QC's). I wonder how they will sound? Chat to you later -- UKPhoenix79 06:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Amg
Hi UKPhoenix79, (any relation with Dumbledore's Phoenix by the way?) Thanks for your support on amg and for your subtle changes that still make it visible when existing in infoboxes. I hope some more support will turn up soon or we'll have to forget it. Hoverfish 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No relation it is just my fave mythical creature. I don't quite understand what you mean by "subtle changes" but I know its a complement so your welcome. Well as many people have pointed out to me before, voting in wikipedia looks for consensus and right now there is none. So if it stays that way the link will remain. If it ever comes down to this, I see no problem in it being a hidden feature, another option for people that can decide to use it or not. Any way since a lot of info boxes use this property I see no reason to loose an option that other users seam to like. -- UKPhoenix79 22:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There was already a discussion, that was a lot like a straw poll. Since AMG did not win, it is no longer in the infobox. It was a way of coming to a conlusion. It technically stands because as I saw in the these discussions, it was added without discssion. Therefore, we were voting whether or not to include it, not whether or not to remove it (for the first time). I will revert it back if you do not comment by 3 November 2006 0:00. Please help me understand why you removed it. (not that I don't expect you to, I'm just in the mood to set deadlines) Cbrown1023 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that you added it without discussion. Cbrown1023 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an early edit of mine. There was a conversation that I assume you saw after its addition. AMG was seen as a good alternative to IMDb especially for older movies where IMDb does not always have good info. Also because it is written by professionals and not by amatures using both can be useful to balance out the infobox links and to remove the appearance of a bias towards one website over another. AMG has now been included in the infobox for most of a year and a straw poll would be about the removal of this option since it has been incorporated successfully into many articles now. Personally I see no problem as this being an option (hidden or otherwise) for articles to use, it in no way needs to be (or should be) a mandatory selection.
 * I must say thank you for contacting me, not reverting, only trying to find out the reasons behind my decision. I should have done it as well. It is interusting to find a person so into deadlines :) -- UKPhoenix79 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed. I just thought that it didn't need a response.  But thank you for informing me just in case. :-) (lol... mine has a long face...) Cbrown1023 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * hehehe ok I just want sure. ("\(.:...:.)/") Monster with claws. "RAWR!!!" -- UKPhoenix79 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, since there was a vote about the issue, claiming that it was seen as a good alternative isn't really true. Most people don't see it that way, and you personally seeing no problem with it being an option makes no difference (any more than anyone else's opinion, which were already voiced at the discussion). On the other hand, there was never a discussion on adding it to the infobox, more people want it gone than want it to stay, and therefore, it goes. - Bobet 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about it when it was 1st added and the point I made about it being a good alternative came from that discussion. Your or my own personal positions also has no baring on the issue since if you check the vote there was no conensus. Since this has been included in the infobox for almost a year the poll is and was about the removal of such items. The removal of this would change many articles. Thus it is important to make sure that there is a consensus on removing something that has been included for such a long time. The poll was not decisive as such it is clear that the item is to remain. I hope that you will feel free to contact me on this issue, but at the moment the decision is pretty clear when it comes to such polls inside of wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, several members did vote for it to stay and did give their reasons. Since everyone agrees to keep at least imdb in the infobox, the original intention of excluding all other but the official site has been compromised. And so we remain with the issue of prefering one film database over another for whatever reasons each one may have. I think even if UKPhoenix79 hadn't done it someone else who would have seen all his links not showing, would have done it. Hoverfish 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea at least that one is out of the way for now :) -- UKPhoenix79 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I'd point out a few things about polls to help clarify any confusion [I hope you guys dont mind :) ] I hope these help -- UKPhoenix79 00:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule. — WP:STRAW
 * Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not  voting. In difficult cases,  straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. — What Wikipedia is not

Original research policy
Regarding your edit to the V for Vendetta (film) article, please see the no original research policy for our policy on adding your own original ideas to articles. -- The Anome 23:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually not original research heck its not even done by me. But it is well sourced using internal wikipedia links and I have now added external references to help with info not found inside of wikipedia. -- UKPhoenix79 10:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Phoenix, I stood up for you last night and actually found that the information was their when it became an FA, as I stated on his talk page. Cbrown1023 14:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow thank you very much :) I hope I wont get too much flack for defending other peoples work. Can you put your quote on the main talk page? -- UKPhoenix79 20:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And edit summaries...
This edit summary seems totally wrong. It could be a botched revert (eg, too far back into the revision history), except that the previous edit was left unmarred, and the only visible change was reintroducing the disputed paragraph. I have no opinion on the matter itself, but I would like some clarification of your intended meaning in the edit summary. NB - this is a dynamic IP, so replying on that talkpage will likely be a waste of time; here or on Talk:V for Vendetta would probably be best. --88.111.156.100 00:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He was referring to an ongoing discussion that only matters to the interested parties. If you are interested, see directly above this post.  Cbrown1023 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix
Hi Phoenix. (Just read your message on my talk now.) Thanks for the welcome back, though I won't be here for long though, just for Bonfire Night and maybe a week after. I'll be available to resolve the V5 issue though. It's a legitimate theme, and I don't think we have to reference every single statement there. Talk to you later.--P-Chan 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm so happy to hear from you again. I'm sorry it cannot be for long, it is ashame to loose such a good editor like yourself. Yet it is understandable. Real life must always take precedence. You should feel proud that your article has made it so far! I also agree that the V/5 theme should remain since it is an intergral part of the movie. I can only assume that those pondering its worth have never seen the movie. Though I am not that fond of the bulleted look that it has now taken on, but if that is the concensus I have no real issue. Enjoy what remains of the 5th and i hope to see you around for a bit before you leave again :) Cheers Mate -- UKPhoenix79 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please take my changes seriously. See the discussion on Talk:V for Vendetta. Please assume good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I always assume good faith, but if you check the talk page you will also see that there is a heated debate about keeping The letter V and the number 5 and putting that section in list format has already been decided as something that a FA should never have. This discussion is throughout the article but most of the discussion is found here I am going to revert that section back to the previously agreed style and I hope that you will use the talk page to convince others on the merrit of a list if you wish to have it done that way :-) ok never mind other users have already changed it for me -- UKPhoenix79 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot see anything on list vs. non-list in that section. Please help me out if I overlooked it.
 * I can see the point to remove this section (though I disagree); my change is not about that. --217.235.250.66 22:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure lists are discussed in Talk:V for Vendetta (film), Talk:V for Vendetta (film), Talk:V for Vendetta (film) & Talk:V for Vendetta (film) All I did was use a key word search of "List" to find all of these.
 * Most people seem to agree with this statement A bulleted list of "trivia" is not "Brilliant Prose", which we expect from a featured article. If you would like to change this start a topic on List vs Prose and try to get concensus from other users. The user you would want to start with would be P-Chan who essentially wrote this article and turned it into a FA. -- UKPhoenix79 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, I couldn't find anything about lists in the section you named before, sorry. I'm actively participating in Talk:V for Vendetta (film), and so should you.
 * (We should really discuss this on the article's /Talk.) A paragraph consisting of sentences without coherence is neither, and it's confusing too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then please edit it to read well and be coherent and unconfusing. That, unlike some of your other edits, will be constructive and helpful. It will also give me more "good faith" in your contributions. Cbrown1023 23:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot edit this into something coherent because it's a list. --217.235.250.66


 * This user is getting a little too disruptive (see my talk page as well), it may be time to notify WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Cbrown1023 22:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I try to avoid that and I hope it dosen't come to that. Lets see if the user will respond to the above & try to work with the rest of us :-) -- UKPhoenix79 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted, I normally try to avoid it as well (this is only my second) but he is really disrupting the page. At least badlydrawn was civil and had a valid point! Cbrown1023 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have actually worked with badlydrawn before and he is a determined editor and really keeps you on your toes. I may not always agree with him but I admire him for his convictions. This user for some reason "knows" that he is right and does not want other users to question those edits. This user can be a real asset to wikipedia if he was to try to help the rest of us and use the talk pages before any editing. Yet he is very willing to brake 3RR I can only hope that he stopes before he is blocked. -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (sigh) The discussion is ongoing. Yes, I'm conviced I'm right, you can call this "know" if you want. I want other editor to question my convistions, but I don't want other users to revert blindly around and destroy content. (Not to speak of waiting for the discussion.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problems in adding new ideas to this page and love it when people bring new ideas to the table. But can you agree not to make any edits to the page until 22:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)? That does NOT include the talk page and I would encourage you to make a new section dedicated to your ideas on improving the article. Thank you so much for not forcing me to report the 3RR violation. I have never ever wanted to do that since I believe most peoples edits are honest ones only trying to improve the article...... Oh why did you just revert again? I'm sorry for this :-( -- UKPhoenix79 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that: "please work with us" was funny. I'm trying to improve the article here, you (collectively) are reverting while destorying data. Assume good faith and contribute to the fracking discussion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * lol... fracking... that's a word they use on battlestar galactica. please try to remain civil, made up curse words aren't appreciated either; they have the same effect as real ones (only a little comical sometimes). Cbrown1023 23:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know if you have noticed but other editors are not liking the edits. If you are unwiling to work with other users I do not know what to say. It is obvious that you are an established user not loggin in from your use of wiki code. So please realize that there are reasons that you are being reverted and yes dont only "work with us" but everyone editing the page & use the talk page to generate new ideas and allow us all to make this a better article -- UKPhoenix79 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to remind you that I already participate? I even started the discussion. (Leaving out stronger language in the last sentence took some willpower.)
 * I'm stepping away from that article for a while, Phoenix. If anything big happens, can you notify me on my talk page?  I'm going to remove it from my watchlist. Cbrown1023 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Also, this is not a joke. You deleted my contributions, all the while demanding constructive work form me. How does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.250.66 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Incase you did not notice Cbrown1023 did find that you had contributed some work and reverted only the changes you made to The letter V and the number 5 from prose to list format here you then reverted everything back to the version you saw fit. This does not show constructive work with other users. I then even got to the point of begging you not to revert since that would have been your 6th time. Only for you to say that I made your life miserable when as this page shows I even complimented you saying This user can be a real asset to wikipedia if he was to try to help the rest of us and use the talk pages before any editing and even bent over backwards to try to help you with the way things are done, giving you more leniency then most people do. Please realise that many people use wikipedia so not all of us agree, that is why we use the talk pages to get some concensus on different ideas -- UKPhoenix79 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I know he meant kinda well... we just have to realize that some users views of what is right is different from ours and most of the Wikipedia community: his feelings that lists look better than prose, that he can revert as many times as he wishes (I stepped back because I violated 3RR and didn't want to do it again.), and other things... it's okay though.  I'm just glad it is over. :) Cbrown1023 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is one of the times that I wish we had an opened and closed parenthatical together [( and )], so that I can make a happy and sad smiley...... :)(, that doesn't work........ :$? :%?Cbrown1023 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is sad... :'( (that makes a crying smiley on AIM)... I like your attempt though, it is very Picasso-like; you gave me an idea... :| it looks stoic-y. Cbrown1023 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bring the issue up again, but I feel bad; just look at his talk page... it seems like we are all attacking him... :( (this is of course not implying that he is a man, it is just that it is easier to type in the masculine pronoun...) Cbrown1023 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at all of above I feel fine since I did everything possable to help this user. This user was not a vandal only passionate about his changes, only to a fault. All I can ever do is try to be polite and to help other users correct mistakes. Unfortuantly I cannot force them to listen. His last edit was completely unessacary and done on purpose knowing about its consequences. Frankly I do hope that he will work with us in the future. I only hope next time he'll help us make a better article and avoid edit wars. -- UKPhoenix79 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you weren't right, it is just that it kinda makes me feel bad when you see all those users warning him... but he was not listening and being disruptive... Cbrown1023 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We're talking about creating pictures with out keyboard characters and I remembered my AIM away message right now:

 :¦:-         -:¦:- []_____   -:¦:-      ¸...¸      __/             \/\____   ,·´º  o `·,/__/  _/\_   //____/\    ```)¨(´´´ |   |  | | |  | | || |l±±±±,,,,      ,.-·²°´   ¸,.-·~·~·-.,¸.´

Around the house

I like it... :-) Cbrown1023 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats cool though I can see a nicely created tree, I think that the house is a bit garbled. Is it supposed to look like that? -- UKPhoenix79 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No really, it's the Wikipedia font, for it so show correctly, you need it in Times. Wikipedia doesn't show them properly........ it is sad :(. Cbrown1023 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here I think this helps :-) -- UKPhoenix79 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay! I tried that, but it would not show.  I'm impressed and happy. :) Cbrown1023 21:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make edits like this -- I personally don't care, but the altering of other editor's signed comments upsets many people. If you want someone to strike an objection during an FA discussion, ask them to do it themselves. Jkelly 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if that upset you since that was not my intent. I thought that it was a standard procedure when objections were removed. -- UKPhoenix79 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta (film)
I've reinstated the nom to WP:FAR pending consensus, and left a note for here, so that the nom can be closed properly with a record of concerns addressed and consensus. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also left a note for to indicate on the FAR if his concerns have been addressed, so that the FAR can be closed if other reviewers concur/endorse.  Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you too dude.--P-Chan 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Turn on your email please.--P-Chan 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse the explosive tone of my Philip Coppens post. You should treat it as "shocked and awed" and not as angry!  :P --P-Chan 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats ok I think you had wiki-rage (similar to road-rage) and you lost control of the keyboard ^_^ on another note I could use some help on Articles for deletion/Bose headphones their at it again and I'm trying to avoid wiki-rage.... trying.... -- UKPhoenix79 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok that's no problem dude. I'll give you a hand there and see what I can do.--P-Chan 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Go to Youtube and look-up Bose Headphones. I have a feeling we can move from there, once you've had a look.--P-Chan 08:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you too! Thank you. Ian ¹³ /t  12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings/Happy Holidays
I wished your Christmas went well, and I also wish you a Happy New Year! &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 14:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merry (or Happy?) Christmas to you as well! And anything else you celebrate! :) Cbrown1023 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Thanks for the message! Happy holidays to you too. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HoneyBee (talk • contribs) 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Talk:Bose (company)/List of Bose product sightings

 * Why did you move this to a talk page? I have returned it to the mainspace.  I assume you dispute my WP:PROD tag, is that correct?  Wickethewok 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally thought that I put it in the talk page. I intended it to be something that might be of interest but not an actual article. -- UKPhoenix79 07:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oooh, okies, I'll move it back then and delete the trailing redirect. Wickethewok 08:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up :-) -- UKPhoenix79 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Ptkfgs
From the E-Mails I've received from you, it appears that PtkFgs is becoming incivil of sorts. He apparently isn't assuming good faith to what I know. I'm not sure if this is becoming heated. I have to work from 8:30am-5pm CST but I'll look into Wikipedia accordingly.

Did you leave any comments on Ptkfgs's user page? I'm going to have to declare Ptkfgs's recent aggression towards you as an act of incivility if it's so. You might want to leave out a notice at WP:ANI if ptkfgs's incivility persists. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He defiantly does not assume good faith on my part but I don't think you can call it uncivil as much as blind determination... Only focusing on myself and Bose related articles. I have not tried to comment outside of the articles discussed as I do not believe that would accomplish anything. I see no reason for his recent determination to delete these pages (especially content in my user page) as I do believe I have been a good editor... but I guess we will have to see what happens! -- UKPhoenix79 02:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is assumed that ptkfgs is showing a little bit of anti-Bose bias (or if I discover that he's showing signs of anti-Bose bias), then it may be possible that I'm going to have to declare his behavior as being incivil, but I'll see what happens for the meantime. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV at Tila Tequila
Please see Talk:Tila Tequila --w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Bose (company)
Sorry about not using the preview function - I'll be more careful from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASH1977LAW (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

another highlander article
hi, how are you? i was wondering whether you can help me expand Quentin MacLeod article to be a better article? Thanks! HoneyBee 16:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to but I have no idea about this particular character & it looks rather nice (good job by the way)... Any ideas on how I can help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need help with Methos article and even Duncan MacLeod article. Someone keep deleting a large portion of the history and wouldn't even consider to discuss it with others. Check out the discussion page, maybe you can help us. Can you revert back (Methos) to the original article before he changed it? My computer is very slow right now. I really appreciate it. Thank you :) HoneyBee 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiya, my computer is still slow so I managed to write you this; There is a new editor that who took it upon himself to delete a large portion of the article without any discussion on the sections that he chose to delete. I was particularly annoyed because while he claimed he was deleting whole sections to "improve" the article, he also firmly said that he will report me because I "accused" him of wrongdoing (discussion page). I was not. I was merely said that the article he was deleting has many sources and were compiled by many editors. He deleted the section because he disagree with the article. Because I'm not an Admin, he threatened to report me if I bother him again. Do you have any suggestion for this? Thank you very much :) HoneyBee 16:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I chimed in, lets see what happens now :-) -- UKPhoenix79 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's interesting how people misrepresent things to try to persuade others to help. Firstly, I threatened to report on the basis of blind reverts of my edits, and not on being "bothered" again.  HoneyBee says that I should have discussed it first, yet she did not think to discuss my changes before her blind revert.  Then you did the same thing.  As I have explained on the Methos talk page, the reason the information was deleted was because there was no mention as to its source, and the casual reader or Highlander neophyte would assume that it was revealed on HL:TS.  D/P have stated in several past interviews that the novels and the animated series are not canon.  If they were, there would be no problem.  This is not something that is just my opinion.  You don't have to look far for this, just search for interviews.  One half of the team will not be giving any more, but there are plenty from the past.  Joe Dick 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet you continued to call anybody a vandal that reverted your content. Look I don't know why these had to become so escalated as wikipedia try's to encourage bold edits, but once you had other editors stating that they disagreed with your edits and would want you to let them know why you thought that way you let them know and not be aggressive about it. Removing good faith warnings on your talk page also shows your unwillingness to work with other editors especially when you threaten them. Look just show some verifiable sources stating what you say that it is not conical that is all anybody has said. -- UKPhoenix79 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid warnings
Please do not post any further invalid warnings to my talk page, or I will report you. Also, please sign your posts. Joe Dick 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do get an admin involved. Joe Dick 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok -- UKPhoenix79 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be refreshing if someone would present the case fairly. I notice your posting on the subject to an admin contains several errors.  If you read the Methos talk page, it is pretty clear that I am willing to discuss things, and have stated my reasons for the changes.  I'm sure that if the guy's a friend of yours that he'll side with you, so misrepresenting things is probably not necessary.  Joe Dick 22:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not misrepresenting anything and I have actually (per your request) posted this for any admin to intervene -- UKPhoenix79 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally would call it misrepresentation when you said that I had not stated my reasons for the changes (which I did) or that I was unwilling to discuss (which I am). Admittedly I did not at first explain myself, but I have now.  Joe Dick 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You actions say otherwise. You did say that they are not cannon after HoneyBee bugged you twice, the 1st time only saying "Incorrect" the second time talking down to her and saying that they are not canonical and then threating to report her. I came along and asked you not to revert any longer and please give a legit source citing why it needed to be changed, you reverted and said the producers said so. The whole point of the talk page is to discuss the betterment of the article so that we can avoid edit wars. You were being heavy handed in your decisions said that your edits was because it is the way it is. That is not a discussion. Please work with us, cite the sources stating why you think that way. Let us know what needs to be worked on. If other editors disagree and change things back to the way it was before don't constantly revert it back but talk to them. I hope this helps! -- UKPhoenix79 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your help. *sigh* i dunno how you do it everytime. i can't keep up with wikipedia all the time. again, thank you for always giving a hand when others need it :) HoneyBee 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just glad to help :-) -- UKPhoenix79 09:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

happy number
Hello. I believe you are mistaken about the definition on the happy number page, and I have reverted your changes again. Please discuss this on the talk page before makng changes again. The issue seems to be that the phrase "or produces an infinite loop" is part of the definition of the process, not the definition of a happy number. The definition, as stated in the first part of the sentence, requires that the process result in 1 in order for a given number to be happy. With the changes you've made, it is unclear how the process terminates if the number is not happy (and so the process is ill-defined (or, read another way, you suggest that the process always ends in 1)). Cheers, Doctormatt 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy birthday, dear Phoenix!

 * Thanks you two! :-) -- UKPhoenix79 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FROM YOUR FRIEND:

Have a great day! (lemon flash) talk  00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow I forgot that today was the 3 year anniversary! Wow! Thanks for the congrats :-) -- UKPhoenix79 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
-BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Highlander Posters
Look's like we are going to have to keep an eye on this user who keeps replacing the HL movie posters which one's that have false copyright licences, and sometimes none at all. Stormin&#39; Foreman 08:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you are referring to the one who was using the game poster, and not myself. The four-color poster in place is in fact the release poster - I got it for my 10th birthday from the theater that was showing the movie, so I am pretty sure of its provenance. The b&w may have been used elsewhere, but I didn't see it until it was posted here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No it was not you, he/she was referring to someone else that kept on changing all the posters and claiming that he created them when it was obvious that it was not him. The 4 colour one is actually the italian version and not the original US version. If you can find a scan of the US version just update the image at Image:Highlander 1 poster.jpg I have not seen any evidence of a theatrical US version of that poster only the B&W US poster shown. -- UKPhoenix79 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See, I never, ever saw the b&w one until it showed up here. I have to confess, I am something of a Highlander geek, and I am pretty sure that - back when there was a Highlander store selling HL merchandise (it later went belly up and was sectioned off to different companies to work) - they sold postcards of unused poster ideas. the Italian poster in place was the same image used throughout Europe and America (with of course the appropriate language changes). I am guessing that the b&w image you were using was a post-release image. The Italian image (identical to the one I have framed on my wall) was one I was given back in '86 by my Dad. We were moving from New York to Wisconsin at the time, and I distinctly remember the posters for the movie being pointed out when we explored NY and Chicago, and my pride in ownng the same poster. I know that isn't citable, but it should indicate the level of surety with which I am confident of this image's provenance. The Italian image is the same as the one released in the US.
 * As well, i completely agree tha tthe one for the videogame shouldn't be allowed, unless it is to the Highlander (franchise) article under other media. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken from WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines
 * The image presented in the table should ideally be a promotional style-A or teaser one-sheet (27" x 41") poster for the film. Failing that, a DVD or a video tape cover may be used [...] For films that have multiple posters, limit the infobox poster to either the teaser (first run) or style-A (occasionally second run) version.

if you follow the link provided you will see that this is indeed the original US style-A version. What you are putting up is the incorrect Italian Style A version. This is an American movie that was first released in the states. If you were to look at other foreign films like the original Japanese Godzilla you will see that it is the Japanese poster not he US poster that was released years later. Life Is Beautiful got many academy awards in the US and they use the Italian poster, The Triplets of Belleville was a French animated feature that had no French spoken throughout the film, only a few songs like the title song was in French, also released in the US, a French poster is used. I hope that I have made my point :-) I know that you mean well but I am keeping with the policy in using the poster that was used first in the country of origin. So I hope you don't mind but I'm going to revert the image again to the American original version. If there is an issue with this, even though I believe that the wikipedia policies back me up on this one we should take this to the WikiProject Films talk pages either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. It seams that this user User:SkierRMH helps people with image disputes also. Please don't take offense at my actions as none is intended, but please if there is an issue we should either keep the US original version up or remove both images until this is resolved :-) -- UKPhoenix79 07:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, we are running into the same issue. Please accept my apology for being unclear: the b&w picture is not from the original theatrical release. It was not used in the US, and the image in place (though with Italian text) is the primary Promotional-A poster utilized int he US and Europe. It was slightly altered for its release in Japan and HK. I have said before, and it bears repeating, that the image you appear oto be espousiong is a secondary or tertiary image initially rejected for widespread distribution as a poster. Not even the link you provided mark it as an A image for the American market. It's provenance is unknown, and cannot be utilized.
 * I am not taking offense at your edits (except for the practice of overlaying an uploaded image on a former image - a pretty bad practice), and I hope you understand my insistence that we use an accurate and verifiable image from the original release of the film. As you will have noted on the link you cited, the image I uploaded keeps recurring throughout Europe in different languages. It was released here in English. Until this matter is resolved, the image that best represents the artwork of the original release should remain in place, and not an image that is at its very best, a tertiary source. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the reasoning behind removing both images in contention until the matter is resolved, we need to keep in mind that the article is still 'live.' With that in mind, i've placed a placeholder image (one you recommended) that I've uploaded with an appropriate summary, etc. Frankly, I could live with this image - at least its in English, and its authenticity is not in question. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  11:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Highlander Poster Proposal
Let's sidestep the issue and go with the DVD image currently serving as a placeholder image. Le tme know if this is an acceptable alternative. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you still think that I'm wrong :-( What more must I do? I must admit that I wish that others would comment on our talk section... but It looks like were the ONLY ones that care.... I still want to get this resolved somehow since I guess I'm stubborn.... wait thats a bad thing :-( oh well I still want to get this answered somehow. -- UKPhoenix79 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Immortal Edition DVD cover is more indicative of the whole highlander mythos. As I said earlier it shows: MacLeod, his katana, Glenfinnin, "Quickening" Lightning, New York City. The current has MacLeod on a hill top (Big Deal). It's also a Resion 2 DVD cover which most U.S. users would't recognize. I also think [User:Arcayne]] has srious ownership issues; he actually suggested I should ask for permission before making an edit and then flatly changed the image back to his liking when he didn't like it. The only rationale that he gave was that it was "too crowded"; (mere opinion). My rationale is not opionion it is fact; the cover shows many more elements of "Highlander". Rather then get in an edit war I am making very logical arguments of why the new image should replace the other. FrankWilliams 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually if you check the talk page you will see that I think that we should use the original poster since that is keeping with wikipedias policies on such matters... There is just a disagreement which one is the original version. -- UKPhoenix79 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No there is not a disagreement about which one is the original. The one that is there now is the one that was always there. I'm proposing changing it to the new one which is better for the purposes of the article for reasons stated above. FrankWilliams 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is... and no it isn't.... Just check the history before that date. Its using the same poster. It is actually policy to use the original poster used for the movies
 * Taken from WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines
 * The image presented in the table should ideally be a promotional style-A or teaser one-sheet (27" x 41") poster for the film. [...] For films that have multiple posters, limit the infobox poster to either the teaser (first run) or style-A (occasionally second run) version.
 * So actually it should use the original poster and although I have uploaded it and given proof to its authenticity Arcayne does not believe me :-( I technically have grounds to put it up there and keep it there but I'm rather busy and the current poster is a good stopgap measure in this debate. -- UKPhoenix79 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't blowng you off. UKP. Panzer-Davis were swallowed up by a large studio, and it took me some time to track them down. They are sending me a few images that were used as original posters for the film. Indeed, the b&w was in fact used, but only after they had run out of the original, 4-color image (the one I recall). The image they are sending is the poster in question, with the English titling. I certainly hope that will do for you, bc I did spend a bit of money in long distance charges to get in contact with them, playing phone tag and follow-up. As soon as I get it, I'll pop you a message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never thought you were... Nice job on tracking them down, I know that I'd love to see the poster but my only concern is it would be the Style-B version since I have shown that the B&W was the Style-A.... So for the mean time I'm going to re-insert the B&W since we have both confirmed that is is authentic and original. I think it might be alright because of its intrinsic artistic value but we should get an independent 3rd opinion in the Wiki-Films side. Since we are going outside the guidelines to put this it it would be best, but I doubt they would even care... If thats true just upload the image over the current one and change any licensing info as needed. -- UKPhoenix79 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I did say that the B&W was the reserve image - the Style-B poster, and that's from Panzer-Davis. When it arrives, I'll upload it over the current one. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Highlander WikiProject?
I'm thinking about starting a WikiProject dedicated to everything Highlander, I was wondering if you were interested... If so please see here Stormin&#39; Foreman 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm about to start the project in the next couple of days; What do you think about this being our userbox?

highlander wiki project
Absolutely! Thanks for inviting me. Although I hardly created/edited any articles nowadays (fatigue/fighting/arguing), but definitely yes. I've been busy editing some stuff for Indonesia Wikiproject too, we just been featured a week ago :) I am also in holiday, dunno when I'm going back to full editing in wikipedia. Have a nice summer! HoneyBee 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Hi HoneyBee. I just though that you should know that someone has started up a Highlander WikiProject and since you created most of the Highlander pages I think that you might want to join :-) But anyway enjoy your vacation!

Bose
What right have YOU got to remove a technical review of Bose speakers from an entry about Bose?

Does the truth hurt too much?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.242.200 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been debated time and time again in the talk page and it has been decided to remove the link due to the NPOV nature of the web page, the obsolete product it was tested on, and the actual verifiability of the tests done on them. -- UKPhoenix79 04:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but arguing to a point of exhaustion establishes little. Bose fan-boys (given your editing activities I assume you'll regard that as a compliment) seem to have more energy than the rest of us. Enjoy. Greglocock 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

UKPhoenix, if it were a GOOD review, you wouldn't remove it, would you? You're removing it because you personally disagree with it. You should leave the link so that other people can make up their own minds. Don't be such a f***ing "school prefect". Why do you care so much about Bose anyway? Seems to me like you probably work for them or have some other connection with the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.242.200 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First off please give me the respect as a fellow editor not to cuss at me or call me names. You really need to Assume Good faith of others involved here Don't attack your Fellow Editors and try to be Civil. So your logic is either you hate Bose or your Dr. Bose or under his employment? Yea you caught me I'm a multi Billionaire that has nothing better to do then to edit wikipedia in his free time :-) The answer to your question is no.
 * This website although quoted often is not sourced with no pier review and is just unverified. It is just as helpful as citing a myspace blog posting. I actually could try to find a pro-bose page if you want that will say the opposite and counter the claims. But this is an encyclopedia so only legitimate sources should be cited. -- UKPhoenix79 05:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi UKPhoenix79, regarding the success or failure of Bose's attempt to sue Consumer Reports, if you have a source that shows that they eventually prevailed in another court, then I'm all for having that in there. Exactly which "higher" court were you referring to that later sided with Bose? Given what's already documented on the case, I'm a little surprised by your insistence that Bose was successful, given the citations. I read the NY Times report on the Supreme Court decision - it's extremely clear that the matter was settled in favour of Consumer Reports on 1st amendment grounds. What exactly is your concern with clarification word, "unsuccessfully", in the first sentence of that section? Regards Mattnad 11:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its very simple if you read the section from start to finish as written Bose was indeed initially successful when they sued them. So saying that it was successful is indeed true. Its just the initial success was fleeting since it got overturned by the court of appeals a few years later. Your view was for the finality of the sum of the events mine was for the chronological events involved with the case. But to get rid of the ambiguity of this I removed the unnecessary word that was added in by the previous editor. -- UKPhoenix79 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So by your logic, the Germans initially won WWII based on the allied retreat at Dunkirk. I think the whole point of adding the term, "unsuccessful" to the topic sentence of the paragraph is to let the reader know the basic outcome of the case.  The following details tell the broader story.  In the US court system, the winner of a case is determined by the final decision, not the earliest.  Don't you think you're missing the big picture here?  By eliminating the adjective, "unsuccessfully", you require the reader to wade though the details just to lean that Bose ultimately lost their case.  Is that the best expository approach in your view?  Mattnad 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually you can say that Germans were successful at conquering France because that is a true statement. Just as Bose was successful during its initial lawsuit. Though the eventual outcome was different than the initial successes in both cases. We can say that the British were repulsed and defeated at Dunkirk, but at the time Winston Churchill managed to make the defeat look like a victory (although a minor one) because they managed to get almost all of the troops back to the UK successfully. So to the Germans Dunkirk was a Victory and to the British it became one also, weird but true. All because their views were different, one repelled the allies from the continent, another escaped utter destruction with almost all of its troops making it back, escaping an utter disaster.
 * Ones viewpoints are skewed; by where ones opinions are, and their position, in the world around them. -- UKPhoenix79 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, aside from long winded way of saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you still haven't addressed the fundamental issue that the topic sentence of that paragraph accurately illustrates the final outcome of the court case. I'm after good, clear writing that explains the facts succinctly. Mattnad 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fact Bose won the case, Fact Bose lost the appeal. Fact Mexico was victorious at the Alamo, Fact Mexico was defeated and lost Texas & eventually the rest of the west... Please try to realize that both statements are correct. -- UKPhoenix79 08:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm.... So if you don't like the outcome, focus on the interim details..... Bose won at a lower court trial... give that equal weight and importance to the final decision that was against them... oh and ignore that in the US legal system, the final court decides the outcome of a case.   It's a poor rhetorical approach that suggests bias on your part. Mattnad 11:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Look please be Civil your writings are coming off somewhat aggressive and I have answered your comments truthfully and without any malice. It is not due to Bias that makes me believe such, but believing that it works best for the statement put forth. You want a quick synopsis of the result witch is a valid and reasonable point. My point of view is also valid and makes sense because they were successful in the lawsuit but the ruling was overturned by the court of appeals, ending in a defeat. Might saying initially successful be more to your liking? The English success at Agencourt did not mean that they won the 100 years war, but they still won some major battles. As you notice I have not changed the statement because you have a valid point of wishing a quick and clear summery of the case. But please don't be snide, it is not necessary and just not needed in a community of editors trying to do the best for this Encyclopedia. -- UKPhoenix79 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty funny - that other editor. Goes to show there are as many opinions as topics out there. Have a good one. Mattnad 15:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Empires
As someone who took part in the editing of List of largest empires, you might be interested in trying to help in this case. Thank you. PocketMoon 11:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

BD Bonus view
I think you are misleading people by listing secondary video and audio as mandatory for blu-ray players. First off **NO** players even have this feature yet. Furthermore even if some players have this feature, its not mandatory for all players, its just mandatory for Bonus View players, and the note makes it clear that bonus view will be mandatory on future players. Thus it would be best to leave it as "Optional (Bonus View players only)" --Ray andrew 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the Panasonic DMP-BD30 does. It is mandatory for All Blu-Ray players that are released under the Blu-Ray consortium to pass the Bonus View specs. That is why ALL Blu-Ray players will find the secondary video (et. al) mandatory. Since the date is past when the requirements make it mandatory and the fact that the notes specify that players released before this date don't have this, I believe it should state as such just to keep up with the current specs. -- UKPhoenix79 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it up at Template_talk:HighDefMediaComparison. Note also that the bd30 has yet to be released. --Ray andrew 02:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did, and I just noticed that also -- UKPhoenix79 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)