User talk:Phoenixia1177

A barnstar

 * Thank you for the Barnstar and an extremely interesting discussion:-) Sorry for the delayed responsePhoenixia1177 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've set up and confirmed email at last, but I don't know why it doesn't show up on my userpage. I don't know if it'll work, so let me know and I'll just post the address here (I set it up just for Wikipedia, so no worries about spam bots - I can change it at any time). I would be interested to receive any resources you have to offer, as you mentioned - although I won't have much time in the near future to actually go through anything, due to work/other hassles. Many thanks again, IBE (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't get mine to show up either, email me at WikiPhoenix1177@hotmail.com. I completely understand about time, I would be happy with even just one more hour each day...:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just on the off-chance that it should end up in your spam folder, I've emailed you, thanks again, IBE (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are you? :( Anyway, hope you return sometime, your presence was most welcome here. IBE (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you're ever going to see this, but sorry about not reaching you. I lost the email password, then I had multiple deaths in the family and didn't really come by for a few months.* Sadly, I just kind of forgot until I looked at this; I feel like a jackass, I hat when people offer me something useful and disappear, I'm very sorry I did it to you. Anyways, if you're still around and catch this, just give me any address and I'll send the things over. *that reads quite bizarre:-) 209.252.235.206 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, a chance diversion has brought me here, so I'll get back to you some time. I don't have much time at the moment because of study (I'm engrossed in an IT PhD, having changed from maths about 18 months ago). You could have left a note on my talk page, but not to worry. I got the feeling it was something serious at your end, because people don't usually vanish without a trace. Great that you are back, and I'll leave a non-mainline email address sometime - still curious to see what you have, but I will only be able to browse for the foreseeable future. The PhD deadlines are looming... IBE (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for solving Asus problem at ref desk
In recognition of your help, especially here with my video driver issue. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much:-) I'm happy that everything worked out - computer drama is a nightmare, to say the least:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply as requested
Hello!

I appreciate your interest and assistance regarding the image, unfortunately, I can't because it consists a friend of mine's address.

Thank you.

0: ]

(Russell.mo (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

Mainspace
Wow, given the emails you've sent me, I was kind of hoping to discover that you had made serious contributions to the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. But it appears that I've made more article contributions in the past couple of hours than you've made since May 2012. The same editing patterns are true of Snow Rise. Interesting stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a lack of interest, but I have an 80 hour work week not counting what I bring home, not counting other obligations. I applaud anyone who has made serious contributions, but I'm in no position to touch articles in anyway that will require more than a minimal commitment - I'm sure half-assing something because something else came up would be worse. Hence why I said I respect that you have made a strong contribution - it's not that I don't want to, but I'm not sure how I can. I'm not sure why that's interesting, though, I admitted as much in our first conversation; and while I don't have time to be overly active here, I'm more than competent on how policies, and other such, should work, so it certainly doesn't inform on anything that has been transpiring.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit, too, that the whole spirit of your comment seems a little "out of touch", what you are saying will be true for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of things. The idea that there is something to be gleaned from how many Wikipedia contributions someone has made is a bit confusing, a bit naive. I'm involved in a lot more than this and, to be perfectly honest, as far as organizations I volunteer my time to, this one ranks fairly low and is always going to be "I have spare time at work, let me answer a few questions, fix a spelling mistake", I have other causes that I am a more direct and involved participant with, they will continue to win every time (and I'm quite certain that, while this is a noble pursuit, my efforts there are of far greater value than anything I could be doing on here with the same time). I respect what you have devoted yourself to, but please don't assume that I'm sitting around eating Cheetos, or some such, when I'm not here.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it's worth considering that it's probably naive to believe one has a clear understanding of what is best for Wikipedia unless one has worked around many of the areas, including article space. Walking in others' shoes is a good thing to do from time to time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That's actually an extremely naive, and confused, perspective. People from outside of an organization often are just as capable, if not more so, at making beneficial change (as much as negative), it has as much to do with the competency of the individual and their general experience as it does anything - and people who have a history with a system, usually, have a strong sense of innate justification for that system, even when it is not reasonable justification; not to mention an overly developed inertia regarding any change, even the overtly positive. I'm sorry, I have no idea what your actual life experiences are, but you seem to operate with a very..."hypothetical" notion of how organizations operate and change. I'm thankful, and appreciative, that you're a great contributor and have put in the hard work to make Wikipedia better, but your insinuation that I haven't edited enough to be able to adequately speak to, and represent my position is just nonsense - and indicative of a, surprisingly, childish perspective. It's not just the weak comment you just made, either, but that you have yet to provide any real criticism of any thing I've said, bundle that up with your "wake up" call approach, and - while a good contributor - you appear to be, again, out of touch. If you want to debate on my talk page, that's fine, but please stick to facts and logic as opposed to backward insinuations about who is naive and who is capable when it comes to making good choices, regarding Wikipedia, or anything else.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's commonplace in forward-thinking businesses for people to take roles periodically in areas they aren't familiar with, to gain a wider appreciation of how things work outside their microcosm.  It would be good for people to do that here as well.  It's a shame you think otherwise.   Foremost this is an encyclopedia which needs excellence in article writing.  Everything else is secondary to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I never said that I think otherwise, that was precisely my point - are you trying to argue that what I think should be different is flawed because I don't edit enough or are you trying to argue that I should edit more because you feel Wikipedia is important? Or are you way over specifying and assuming that without writing more articles, I can't possibly have any skills that translate to having "perspective" on what I'm saying? And the "Everything else" line is neat, but I, personally, care more to use my time on the RD instead, I am more effective there, I really don't care what your personal opinion on that is.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think one thing I've noticed lately is that all the main complainants at ANI or otherwise have literally a handful of genuinely helpful contributions to the encyclopedia between them. Sadly that drastically diminishes their impact as this is about building a significant and excellent body of encyclopedic work, not just chatting around speculatively and giving so-called "expert" opinions.  Not suggesting you would ever do that, but Wikipedia's primary goal is to create an encyclopedia, not to facilitate chat fora.  And before you get all sniffy, sure your (and others') contributions to the ref desks are valuable to those who visit Wikipedia specifically to find a chat desk (last time I looked, it was fewer than 0.01% of visitors to the site) but hey, if we're  going to host a chat desk, at least we should host it as professionally as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All of my issues have to do with the RD, and only that, I have never attempted to argue on behalf of anything beyond that; so I'm not sure what your statement really has to do with me - whatever the outcome of my thread at ANI, I fail to see how it impacts anything in mainspace, actually - in other words, true or not, I fail to see your point. And the RD isn't a "chat desk", or it need not be treated as such - answering questions is a valuable service, even if it is an ancillary one as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is not a second class thing by nature, so I'm not seeing what your point is regarding that either.
 * All that aside, I have neither time, nor interest, in writing articles - and I'm not going to - so you can either be happy that I volunteer my time at all, or not, to this site (I'm certainly not compelled to). At best, this seems to be you trying to make yourself sound important, or more justified, because you write articles on Wikipedia; at worst, you're presenting more good arguments to move on to stack exchange, or something like it, instead of here (If your attitude, here, really is in line with that of the rest of Wikipedia, then what's the point in trying to improve the RD? I'm knowledgeable and enjoy answering questions in my free time, I do it here because it is a contribution I can make to a site I enjoy and respect, but I am certainly not obligated to be insulted and belittled for it, nor for expressing my viewpoints).
 * At any rate, what is your point, specifically, as pertains to me? Without going on about plural "yous", and "chat fora", and "complaints at ANI", and etc., what is your point as regards me, my specific contributions, and my specific points? Because it looks like you're insinuating something, poorly, or that you've come here to bitch about people who aren't as interested in the thing you're interested in - or, perhaps, you want to rationalize why it's okay that a bunch of people seem to respond poorly to you and your methods. I don't know and, honestly, I'm not sure I actually care, this is turning into a great waste of my time (and I don't have tons of it), so why don't you clearly make your point or move on?Phoenixia1177 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

you've been quoted
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Rambling_Man_forgets_the_IBAN_once_again μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup
Pittsburgh Wikipedians are invited to a meet up on April 3, 2015. Meetup Pittsburgh


 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)