User talk:Phoenix B 1of3/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Phoenix B 1of3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png Map

I apologize for branding your edition DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png map as vandalism. Your edition was in good faith. Sorry.

About the time zones in the former USSR area in the DaylightSaving-World-Subdivisions.png map: The successor countries of the former Soviet Union are one hour ahead of Coordinated Universal Time as one hour was added to each time zone of the former USSR in 1930. All successor countries of the USSR still maintain this and most of them have abolished Daylight Saving. The complexity of the former USSR area apart from being one hour ahead of Coordinated Universal Time is that some of these countries have either abolished and permanently fixed their time zones during Standart (Winter) Time or during Daylight Saving (Summe) Time. However also according to the definition, these countries do not follow daylight saving any more. The complexity of not following Coordinated Universal Time and the permanent fix of time zones by countries either in Standart (Winter) Time or during Daylight Saving (Summe) Time could be further elaborated upon, because it simply ceases as the following of Daylight Saving Time. -Saguamundi (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats OK, I forgot all about it, I had a feeling when I had made the edit that it would be controvercial, so I realy can't blame you for mistaking it for an act of bad faith, now that I have done further research, I now realize that permanent DST does not actually fall under observence of DST. You are a brave user to seek out those you have clashed with to make peace, I have been meaning to do the same for another user, whom which I edit war'd with a few months back, maybe someday I will do the same. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You, that was a truly inspirational move and deserves a barnstar when your block expires.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC

Speedy deletion nomination of Phoenix B 1of3/Belgium – Republic of Texas relations

A tag has been placed on Phoenix B 1of3/Belgium – Republic of Texas relations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I ment to move it to User:Phoenix B 1of3/Belgium – Republic of Texas relations, I had moved it again to its proper place, but forgot to tag the inaccurate redirect for deletion, so sorry. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

UTC offsets worldwide

UTC offsets worldwide - talk

I made a table and copy it here since I don't know whether it will stay where it currently is. Currently I would like it to go to the top of the time zone article. TZ master (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello TZ master, I noticed you posted File:UTC hue4map X world Robinson eng.png without the recent changes we worked on, First of the text, I removed the text from File:UTC hue4map X world Robinson.png with the intention to retype it latter, without the hue of the old colors surrounding the text, you have the colors of Australias time zones wrong, India is wrong, Iran is wrong, the azores are wrong as well as some parts of eastern canada, I suggest we finnish the file that has no text (shown just below this section), improve its colors and retype, not paste, its text, and that map will be the one to post. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a comment at: commons:File_talk:UTC_hue4map_X_world_Robinson_eng.png TZ master (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good idea actually, I didn't notice its talk page, sorry. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the talk page after you contacted me. I thought it is better to have the conversation closer to the media in question, so other people and we self, can better keep track. On the text free I changed Newfoundland Island. These green colors are hard to distinguish, same with India vs. Nepal. Maybe the non-full hours zones should get extra treatment, altering saturation or so. TZ master (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

TZ master I need to appologize, I have been feeling regret all day because my previous statement was not worded correctly, and came out more of an insult, I didnt understand at the time what your masterplan was, it all makes sense now, either way I should not have titles the section on your page Many Mistakes I should have simply requested we discuss a few of my concerns, I didnt think at the time that my comment was a step towards throwing our cooperative aquainenceship away, in a few weeks time we have exchanged barnstars, and worked together on multiple projects, and I didnt mean to taint the friendship, Sincerily – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not the best feeling seeing the posting, :-) But if I make mistakes, I am happy people tell me. Best regards. TZ master (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

UTC offsets worldwide - table

AfD comments

Your personal opinions on Islam and LGBT people are irrelevant to the goals of the encyclopedia. If you don't have anything constructive to say, please keep quiet rather than attacking Muslim and LGBT folks who may be editing Wikipedia right along with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying I do not encourage nor dicourage is not a personal attack, but rather me saying that it has nothing to do with my defense of the articles, and yes, my stance was in defense of the articles on Islamic and LGBT subject, I appologize if I offended you or anyone else, I will try and keep from disclosing any unnessisary opinions in the future. I thank you for your constructive critisism, please have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here was my defence of the article Muhammad in the Bible.

Keep I am not a fan of Islam, probobaly neither are the people who nominated this page for deletion, but thats not a reason to delete, This artical desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. This isn't well sourced with internet references, but that is because because the quran is most likely there source, It is a notable subject in the Middle East and North Africa, salvage what can be proven, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC).

What I meant to say by That statment was I am not pro nor anti islam, the person who nominated the article for deletion was prejudiced about the religion denying its place on wikipedia, the article could be rewritten and improved, it only lacks internet sources because they have a one up the Koran a direct source, Notable subject, keep what can be backed up by evidence, what is wrong with all that?– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my rewrite, that has now taken the place of my old statement.

Keep I have no affiliation with islam, I am saying that to clarify it is not my reasoning for defending this article. I know at least 450 million people who would find this topic useful. I will admit This article desperately needs a rewrite by an expert on the subject. The only reason this isn't well sourced with internet references is because because the Koran (a source more accurate than any website could possibly provide) is most likely there source. This is an extreemly notable subject not just in the Middle East and North Africa, but for muslims around the world, this is deffinatly salvagible, do not delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also rewritten my statment for Jamey Rodemeyer to:

Strong Keep The article fully meets WP:GNG, This case has also generated very much media attention, the victim is now well know and talked about in the media and general public, supplying many opportunities for additional citations and expansion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your rewriting. :) [As a side note, we wouldn't be able to use the Koran as our main or only source - we would need secondary sources that interpret it - but I think that all together we seem to have found some good references that do interpret those Koran verses.] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm glad that you're not letting your biases so rule you that you vote in AfDs based solely on them (though that doesn't seem to be the case here), which is why the votes are not the issue here. What are your comments about how you and other users don't like Islam and how LGBT people shouldn't flaunt their sexual orientation (by, you know, dating or talking about people they find attractive, like heterosexuals do?) adding to the discussion? What do they do other than create an unwelcome environment for editors belonging to the groups in question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your right, I'm sorry about my vote on the International Anti-Zionist Network, its just I have many jewish relatives, my grandmothers always talking of how we should never forget the holocaust, and to see a name like that. I was pedjudiced on it, I will restate my statment, and will try to remember that my statments should not be based on anger, so I will strike my statment, and say what matters, that the organization is notable, and has adequate references. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, my relatives are the same way (grandfather was in concentration camps, enormous extended family in Poland nearly all killed), but anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism aren't the same - there is certainly overlap, but this doesn't seem to be an instance of such. I hope my comment was helpful, and I appreciate that you re-thought yours. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 19 Oct

Talkback

Initial message copied from Muboshgu's Talk Page:

Dear Muboshgu Please refrain from nominating every page you disagree with for deletion. I have tagged most of them for {{rescue}}, leaving the general wikipedian public to decide there fait. Most of these Baseball players you are trying to remove from our website have achieved multiple titles, solidifying the notability on wikipedia. Abuse of the AfD tag is extreemly disruptive, and takes up valuable time from administrators that could be better spent dealing with the bigger problems. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not "abusing" the AfD tag. I'm nominating articles I don't think are notable. Second, winning titles does not "solidify notability". Show me where that automatically qualifies someone for GNG. Third, the word is "fate", not "fait". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize I am not the best speller, however I stand by my decision to tag the articles for {{rescue}}, I am not a reviewer, I am simply leaving it to the hands of our fellow wikipedians to choose if these are notable or not, some have already fallen under a WP:Snow Keep, Please have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your tagging articles for rescue. It's up to the community to vote keep or delete in any particular AfD, so it's certainly possible for any and all to be kept. You'll notice I withdrew nominations on some of the snow keeps. However, many of those articles fit the patterns of deletable articles and I see no problem with the nominations specifically. You have a nice day yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is with shear volume of articles.. between you(Muboshgu) and Alex we now have around 40 articles up for deletion and a slew of prods to go through... I know you dont want to call it an afd war but it seems like alex is trying to match your numbers and it just escalates... hopefully we can refrain from adding more articles till the ones already there have worked their way through the process.Spanneraol (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Alex dePROD'd a few more articles I want to run through an AfD, but I'm holding off until the current ones are sorted out. Even though an "AfD war" was not my intent, I can see the outside perspective can easily construe this as one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagging rescue

Please stop tagging every article you see on AFD that you vote keep in with the rescue template. That can be considered as canvassing, and it's abuse of the tag. Thanks Secret ^account 22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realized I tagged so many, however my reasoning today was another user, whom tagged multiple articles for deletion, his reasons were not up to par, he was picking countless baseball players of whom achived multiple titles and were in many championships, as well as ones with other reasons that establish notability, I felt he was abusing the {{AfD}} template, and took a step to counter some of his actions. I realize this may have been a poor decision on my part, I didn't mean to start an Afd War. I am new at the rescuing process, I only want to help, I realize I have made countless mistakes, but thats how we learn through our mistakes, and the constructive criticism of others, I will try to be more conservative on what I tag for rescue in the future. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree these baseball war AFDs needs to stop it's basically one user against another user. Don't get me wrong a couple of the subjects of these AFDs don't meet our notability standards, but many of them do. I like your willingness to help and to learn from your mistake. Sorry I was a bit rude with that warning. Thanks Secret ^account 02:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My recent decision to nominate the article Lizzie Phelan, is my last until the the number of entries in CAT:ARS is signifigantly reduced, and most of the current AfD's are settled. :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Why have you tagged the rescue template to Aubrey Wentworth and voted keep in the AFD? That was unfair.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't the two usually go together? It was an article I felt very salvageble, and as I stated I would do above, I weighed the choice before I did so. I never heard of having to keep silent on the AfD just because I felt it should be given a chance through WP:ARS. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if the subject is salvagable - as I pointed out in the AFD, I carried out a through source trawl for the subject - I only nominate if there is NO coverage in sources inline with WP:RS - there isn't. So you cannot salvage the unsalvagable. So you shouldn't be adding that info if some has proved that there isn't anything more to add. In this case it is trying to hang on to a non entity. I think within a list, this information would have been fine. However, a bunch of IP's felt they knew best. I get why you have added it to some articles though, because I had a look - and some of your choices are good because there is coverage on the net that hasn't been included in the subjects. It is just this one that I disagree with you on. Sorry for the essay, I always feel the need to explain myself. Hope you are having a good evening. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That definately is something for me to think about, perhaps a merge into a list of the charecters of the show would be a good idea, I think I sometimes suffer from Fahrenheit 451 syndrome and think everything can be salvaged, I have a bad habit of looking at the legnth rather than notability, a merge would be just fine here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It is fine, I know the feeling, I was actually so eat up about Aubrey's article being a mess, I did that source search originally with the intention of improving it. I love soaps, and improving their articles - so it doesn't fill me with joy when I find one with no potential.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I Think This is Goodbye

The people on this website know no forgivness for mistakes, and can never let you live anything down. You say something wrong and try to make it right, your still damned from what you first said. I havn't accomplished anything but wasting my time on this website, most of my articles have long been deleted, every article I defend is deleted, every article I say doesn't belong is kept, I have made nothing but enemies on Wikipedia, they obviously dont want nor need me, This website might lose one more editor today, the real world calls me, its a beutiful day here in the Sonoran Desert, the saguaros are so much prettier than this stupid computer screen, a retirement from this website might be the best thing I could do right now, I might come back, I might not, but what ever I do... who cares what I do, Its my life I dont need to explain it to the bastards on this website, Goodbye. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of a wikibreak as I decide weather to stay or not, I do not wish to make a rash decision I will regret, I wish to give a few days before I officialy retire from wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think I would be making the wrong decision by leaving. I think I enjoy this website too much, I just need to own up to the fact that what I said was wrong, and should never have been said in the first place, I was wrong for posting personal opinions on an AfD page, even if I reworded it, whats done is done, I can not change history, but I can try to make everything I do from now on more thought out, and word things properly before I hit the save button, I always forget my opinions may be important in the real world but have no place in an encyclopedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Help Me. I am New to Wikipedia

Please help me that how to restrict when a person added a WP:SPS in an article again an again. Please review this article Ballia and suggest me that what to do to restrict adding "People" section which is self published source and it is listed within this article at least 4 times and every time it is deleted by someone else.

Waiting for your reply. Thanks.Rajaniphysio (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hate to admit it, but I'm not the right person to ask for this, The most likely people to be able to help you would be one of the people to have edited the essay on verifiability[1], sorry I couldn't be of much assistance. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Loo

Links to specific reliable sources would be helpful instead of a vague wave. Goodvac (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not endorce Dennis Loo's opinion, I am a Republican who supported G.W. Bush, however Social issues are a major topic taken to heart by many on the left on wikipedia, everyone of them I have voted delete on I receive such opposition its just not worth arguing with them, This person has written several other books not mentioned on wikipedia and is a "somewhat" known activist, I have changed my vote to Neutral as I am truly OK if it stays or Goes. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When you get the chance

Hi! I was just wondering if, when you have some time, you could check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Quite a few of your !votes in past AfD's have not been up to the standard expected for these discussions, and do more to distract from the debate than help create an actual consensus. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it may help you to take a step back from AfDs for a bit until you can get the hang of things. !Votes like the one you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fridays (Cartoon Network) are giving me the hint that you don't really understand how these discussions work.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This one I had rushed on as I was in a hurry to catch up with all the AfDs I had missed, and I shouldn't have typed without thinking it out, I have now changed my statement to merge as well as add suggestions of what we could do. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just remember you shouldn't be trying to "catch up" and comment in every AfD. It leads to cases like this one, where it looks like you !voted keep without any idea of the context of the article. Using flawed logic just because you want to be involved in every AfD benefits no one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Death Valley Driver Video Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death Valley Driver Video Review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Goodvac (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I think you have the wrong person, I have no affiliation with the page, and I am not an administrator, thus can not close an argument. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You participated in the AfD. Goodvac (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry I had misunderstood I had though you said I closed the discussion and because of it caused something, now that I read over your message again I see you ment the part I was simply interested in the page, I also had truly forgotten I even voted on it, it hadnt looked framiliar to me, I will join the discussion, I am so sorry. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your objective analyses in AfD discussions, many of which have helped to save notable topics. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic female blues

ALOT IS NOT A WORD Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory follow up--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is alot of capital letters just to say the word "alot" of which I tend to use alot is acutally a nonword that irritates alot of people. I guess I have alot of rewording to do on alot of pages to eliminate the word "alot" from alot of my comments to satisfy alot of people who dont like the word "alot", and replace it with something else. Thank you for this piece of information, it was alot of help. :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)