User talk:Phoenix79/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Wikipedia User Page

Invitation

Hey Phoneix, I've noticed that you seem to be interested articles that have to do with power in international relations, like the great power article. I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations. We're short on members and you'd make a fantastic contributor. --Hobie (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that. There's a lot of work to be done. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks for such a nice compliments. I haven't been in front of a PC in a while so this was a nice surprise. I might just take you up on your offer :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regional Power

Hey Phoneix, Nirvana and I were hoping to get your input over at the regional power article. It had a horrible OR and synthesis problem and needs a major revamp. Could I please get your help improving the article. I'll be taking a sabbatical from Wikipedia and one person can't improve an article this needy. --Hobie (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the issue resolved now? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Usurp

The reason the 'crats won't do it is because the fact that you have more edits than the ru Phoenix guy would automatically make you the "primary" in line for SUL Phoenix - whether you tried to or not. So even if the ru guy decided to try and unify his accounts, it wouldn't let him because you have more edits. This is why they won't do the change. Anyways, I'm not a 'crat, just an admin who is familiar with their policy, so I'll leave your most recent post up for them to confirm this. –xeno (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn... So there is nothing that I can do then, even if the ru user doesn't want SUL? -- -- Phoenix (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Great Power

Hey Phoenix, I'm gonna be away for the next few days. Keep up the good work on the controversial pages while I'm away and please join the Wikiproject, we could definitely use help from a valuable editor like yourself. Cheers! Nirvana888 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you back -- Phoenix (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Solar system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
I should have done this MUCH earlier! First time - learning & living! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
After almost a year I'm surprised that you even remembered me. I'll see what I can do. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical powers

I'll keep an eye on it. There was an edit war going on at Superpower and Potential superpowers too and the edit-warrior has been blocked. Lol at least Great power seems to have stabilized for a days so far. Chanakya hasn't replied so I'm hoping he got the message. Then again, maybe I'm speaking too soon. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear god! Well heres hoping that this is a temporary situation. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup......spoke too soon. sigh Nirvana888 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(od)Didn't see a blatant 3RR violation. You have to exceed 3RR for it to be one. Also, all the reverts were from two days ago, too late for any blocks to be issued. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Luna Santin protected the page and issued warnings. -- Phoenix (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Historical Powers. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. (for 48 hours) ScarianCall me Pat! 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was I blocked I was only monitoring the situation and never came close to a 3RR violation. Not only that Offerpoint seams to have been created only to continue an edit war. Please check the similar comments left behind. I don't know why I got 48 hour block when I made only 4 edits to the page ever and only 2 where in the last 24 hours trying to reinforce the idea of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- Phoenix (talk)
You were still edit warring. When you start discussing, you're expected to stop until the discussion comes to a consensus. I don't see that you've been especially active on the talk page, either, with only one edit. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
All I was doing was monitoring the situation and I wasn't trying to be involved either. Only try to reinforce the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I only made 2 edits in a 24 hour period how was that edit warring? I was trying to get the parties to talk to eachother and since the talk page wasn't being used I knew they would notice the edit summaries and made only a couple of edits to get them to talk. Really how was I edit warring? I made 2 edits 21:26, 6 August 2008 and 08:02, 7 August 2008. Also the editor in question seams to be the ip editor 89.168.248.33 who made about 8 edits in 24 hours. I only wished for the page to be stable and I was making sure that I wasnt going to get involved with the edit war. I only wanted to make sure that they started to talk. Since when has 2 edits been seen as an edit war? Especially since I have been very careful to follow wikipedias policies rules and procedures! Not only that but why was I given a longer block then the person that actually broke the 3RR rule? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block, it looks like good faith editing to me. Unless I'm mistaken, he only reverted twice within 24 hours, and knowing of UKPhoenix79's knowledge of 3RR, I'm sure he wouldn't have broken it. This block seems more punitive than preventative. I won't wheel war, but I propose an unblock with a warning to leave that article alone for a while. I do endorse Offerpoint's block. Useight (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence on this one. I was actually trying to act as a supervisor with the editors only trying to reinforce the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I am unsure what a wheel war is but I assume that means you wont unblock only to have me blocked again. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WHEEL. P.S. - I like your edit summary here. Useight (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL!!! I hate typos. I tried to stop it when I realized that I said want instead of wasn't... but it was too late. I only hoped that no one noticed... oh well. But again thanks for being the only one to pop up and give me a complete vote of confidence, it was really appreciated. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Block reviewed

Cross posted[1] from parallel thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, for the purposes of the record.

Further to Phoenix's request for a block review, I have looked into the circumstances surrounding his block by Scarian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and would like to concur with the block. It is evident that Phoenix's general approach to contributing to Historical powers is not in line with that which we expect: build consensus for changes that are disputed through civil, reasonable discussions on the talk page (graduating to available mediums of dispute resolution, if necessary). Rather than contribute constructively, it seems to me that he has opted for the "blank revert" option, in an attempt to force through the 'correct version' of the article (⁂ history of Historical powers).

For similar reasons, I also concur with Scarian's block of Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was heartily returning the ping pong ball in the edit warring at the article. The parties are invited to read related material on this matter during the duration of their respective blocks, including:

Edit warring is simply not the way we do things on here! I hope both parties can take useful lessons from these blocks. As a summary response, however: endorse block, and decline to unblock at this time.

AGK (talk ◊ contact) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How was I uncivil? I was being very respectful and ironically I was advocating against edit warring something that I am now accused of. I had no interest in the content being argued I only didn't want another disruptive edit war to occour on this page. So I tried to get them to stop by reverting to the previous version before it was changed and asked them to talk. I had no idea what the correct version of the page was nor did it matter which one prevailed I only tried to get the users to talk. People are assuming that I was actually interested in the content being disputed when that is father from the truth. I was actually trying to get the page to stop being the ground for an edit war. I do find the accusation of edit warring quite amusing after I was saying similar things to the others involved. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • At the very least, Phoenix's block should be reduced to match his Offerpoint's block. I understand this is a repeat block for Phoenix, and that edit-warring can occur without breaking 3RR, but they should each receive equitable treatment nonetheless. –xeno (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to agree that 48 hours is slightly harsh, and I would not disagree with an encouragement to Scarian to meet similar situations with a block of (for example) 32 hours, rather than 48. However, I do not agree with the sentiment that both editors should receive identical blocks: each block is tailored to the individual situation, and in practice that means adjusting the length to adequetly stem the flow of disruption. Previous history of edit warring is a major factor, but striving to ensure the "other side" does not 'get off lighter' is not.
    Regards, AGK (talk ◊ contact) 22:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but I was taking into consideration that Offerpoint broke 3RR and Phoenix did not. So, while Phoenix has the aggravating circumstance of having a prior block, he has the mitigating circumstance of only making the 2 revisions. Nevertheless, it's up to Scarian at this point. –xeno (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I will reduce it to 31 hours from this point onwards. Is this satisfactory? ScarianCall me Pat! 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • seems like a fair compromise, yep. –xeno (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reduced it 24 hours from this point onwards. The compromise effectively reduces the block by about 12-14 hours overall. Hope this is satisfactory. I didn't remove the block entirely, Phoenix, because you were, to an extent, edit warring. When you return I think you should thank Useight. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I had no personal stake in how the content turned out I only wished for the users to stop edit warring... which is what I was blocked for... That is what I don't understand. Does that mean that anyone who tries to stop an edit war by editing is automatically an edit warrior? How many edits does one have to do to be considered an edit warrior? Is one edit enough? is two? Also I was trying to act as the responsible party in this I was attempting to get admins involved with this even before this started. I was attempting to do the right thing. Wouldn't policy like this create a chilling effect? I wished to get more involved with the internal workings in wikipedia and assist by watching a potentially disruptive situation and stop it before it got worse. I did everything that the policy says Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Wikipedia:Edit war and WP:3RR and I got blocked for trying to help :-( not only that but the person that got blocked is now unblocked and I am still blocked... Why did that happen? I will defiantly thank Useight for being willing to stand up for me on this asking for an unblock and xeno for at least thinking I shouldn't have gotten a longer block then the actual edit warrior. But I believe that I have been a very good editor here and still unsure why my attempt to help stop an edit war got me blocked for edit warring. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Great power

Hey Phoneix, I was hoping to get your help. The great power article is being reviewed for good article status. The reviewer, Axl, has been making a huge number of suggestions and Axl and I cannot bring the article up to snuff by ourselves. I was hoping that you and Nirvana could help us out in improving the article. All the best. --Hobie (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait on my reply. I have been obsessing on another project of mine here at wikipedia (creating All-time Paralympic Games medal table) that took much longer that I expected. I will do what I can to help (I really would love to help get another article to GA level) but I am unsure how much time I will be able to provide until next week due to real life commitments. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reproducing the convo on my talk page! Viewfinder (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome? -- Phoenix (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm more into topography than international relations, but occasionally I contribute to non-topographic articles too. I'm not contesting the United Kingdom or Great Power articles as they currently stand, but I am not the only Wikipedian who disagrees that the UK is a great power, and I was unable to restrain myself from responding to claims that "nobody really disputes that it is". Viewfinder (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The article starts off saying While some nations are widely considered to be great powers, there is no definitive list, leading to a continuing debate. But being Wikipedia we don't decide (That would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH) we only report what accredited experts agree upon. The reason this debate started was because a wikipedian was trying to get under my skin... He didn't realize that I just really don't care. I only want this to be a good article & accurate with what accredited experts agree with. Oh and if someone replies to a comment you made, it doesn't make sense to change your original statement since that would make ones reply look silly. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was expanding on my original comment when you responded. Viewfinder (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No Prob :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope we can agree that comments like "you obviously have too much time on your hands" breach WP:CIV and get under the skin of most Wikipedians, although perhaps you were right that I should not have deleted that comment. Would that it were true, and I had not missed the Middle Power thread that you showed me! Viewfinder (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Also - I was not aware that it was wrong to revive dormant threads. Or should I have started a new thread, referencing the old thread? Viewfinder (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
At least you have a sense of humour, always a good thing. The problem with reviving past threads is if the thread itself was started in an uncivil manner as it was done in this case. The user didn't like the fact that people did not support his position so he was trying to disrupt the article as a way to try to get back at other users (i.e. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). This conversation had been dropped a month ago. As it was started and ended rather poorly it apparently didn't look good to other users (some who put a lot of work into it and successfully managed to get the article into GA status myself excluded unfortunately) when the conversation was re-hashed. There are many hot topic issues on many articles some much more potent then this one. Try and make comments in the Scotland article about the beginning sentence for one thing and you will get yelled at rather quickly. As the old saying goes Sometimes it is better to let a sleeping dog lay. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free image you uploaded to be deleted

Hello. I removed the image Image:Bose Aviation Headset portable.jpg from Previous Bose headphones because it is replaceable. There may not be a free image right now, but one could certainly be made. Unless you disagree, the image will be deleted in a few days. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

if at all possible I would like to keep the image. I have looked all over for some free images but I have been foiled each time. It was used to advertise the products and not even sold any longer. Shouldn't be any copy problems. Let me know what you think. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Highlander Reunion

Hullo, how are you? I don't know whether you remember me, but I am part of the Highlander WikiProject. I have been busy everyday for the past two years so I don't have any time to contribute to Wikipedia anymore, except the usual dabbling. Anyway, I'd like to inform you with a new Highlander series called "Reunion".(http://www.legendaryheroes.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=H1337) Where do we put this article; should we create a new article or in the Highlander series section? Or just spread it out equally in Highlander articles? I might not be able to contribute much, but I just wanna give you some infos. Thanks. HoneyBee (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian Edit Warring Part 2 3? Too Many to Count

Hey Phoneix, haven't see you around in a while. I just wanted to let you know that there's been another eruption of POV pushing at the superpower page. It appears that it might be the infamous Versace 11 stirring trouble again, but we don't know for sure. One user appeared out of the blue one day, acting like he had been monitoring the situation for a while, and provides a huge number of substandard sources. They then went on to add Russia as a superpower to the article. I removed, and there's been a debate going on for a little while now. We've rounded up everybody, and me, Nirvana, Zebulin, and Deavanger have been hashing it out. We're concerned about the ramifications of this new upwelling and how to handle it. There's a convo on my talk page if you want the abbreviated version. All the best! --Hobie (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea I've been kind of busy in real life and have only managed to dabble here and there. Sorry for the delay in my reply. I will look into this and see whats up... Though I might not be able to really get into this until monday, sorry :-( But please keep me in the loop, your a good editor. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

I made a post on the Scotland page, let me know what you think please. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed like I asked :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Phoenix. Do as I've done, self-exile yourself from that article. IMHO, it's got a Devolutionist bend to it, which can't be easily purged. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ashame that you decided to remove yourself, I did a similar thing after my last encounter. I only hope that logical arguments will win the day. Your help would be appreciated :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't wish to be buried, until I'm dead. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well a little dirt in the face wont hurt... As long as you don't let it pile upon you, you should be fine :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. Discussions on the Scotland article, is like a root canal job ('without' freezing). GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest novacaine :-P -- Phoenix (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You may, but I'll just watch the discussions. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, please read our medical disclaimer, Wikipedia does not give medical advice. ;) --Cameron* 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL :-D -- Phoenix (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

User:Atlantix Cristall, User:Potito m. petrone, and User:Right Nation all have a remarkable similar modus operandi in their user page edits, mainspace edits, POV pushing Italy as a great power. Two of the users seem to be newly created accounts with the sole purpose of re-adding reverted material. Do you think that they could be sockpuppets or at least a tag team of meatpuppets? Nirvana888 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there must be a mistake.
I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, Philip Baird Shearer, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.
Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work. Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC).
Very kind words, I hope that the accusation is false and that your encounters here have not discouraged you from editing. We all need help to improve wikipedia :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Assesment

Hey, I was wondering, can you assess the Potential Superpowers page and give it a rating. I'm right now trying to bring the Middle, regional, Potential, and Superpower articles up to good article status after I finish the Potential Superpower subsections, and the Potential superpower is the only one that hasn't been assessed yet. Deavenger (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

My amended proposal

Sorry about that! My change to point 1 was a last-minute thing, well after midnight. I am changing it back to the original now. Will you reconsider your vote? Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I know it's bad form to change a proposal after the vote has started, but there were only four votes, and I didn't want to scrap it altogether over a silly mistake. I will withdraw the amendement very quickly if it doesn't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my amendement - it was poorly thought out and obviously won't get support. I thought I was simplifying aspects of Mooretwin's proposal that were inhibiting discussion - the last thing I want to do is create more division. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Well so much for that then. Thanks for trying at least :-) it is appreciated -- Phoenix (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Power community reassessment

Please could you direct me to the guideline which indicates that involved editors should not contribute? I was concerned about this, but could not find any such guideline, so I contributed with a declaration. Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't find it either I believed that involved editors were asked to stay away to make it impartial. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland and Northumbria

Hello Pheonix. Your assertion that Northumbria was part of England when they ruled the area containing Edinburgh is one most people would agree with. This is because much the information comes from twelfth century chroniclers from southern England, perhaps putting a gloss on the West Saxon kingships. There are many instances in history of rulers portaying their Kingdom as having subordinate rulers, while in reality, they are as independent from them as any other Kingdom. We have to be careful when reading these chronicles, and remember who they were writing them for. PS. Hope you have A merry Christmas and a guid New Year. Titch Tucker (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Canute waged a hard war to conquer Northumbria (including the other 6 kingdoms) and actually placed a person he trusted to oversee his lands as Earl. But even if we say that Canute didn't have full control of the area and Erik had more control than Canute would admit, that is akin to the modern day Pashtun area of Pakistan... But maps don't list that area as independent nor do they make it a part of Afghanistan. But more than that my original point was that places in what we now call Scotland were not actually Scottish and in a way we can say that Edinburgh has a 1,000 years of Scottish occupation... But realistically that is just being silly. Personally I love how some parts of history just seam to be forgotten only of others to be obsessed over. But I would also like to wish you a Great Christmas and a favourable New Year, All the best :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety talk 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland reassessment

Hi Phoenix. Concerning the conversation on the Scotland reassessment page, I can well understand how you must feel if you think an editor has been sniping or acting in an incivil manner. I'm not sure though that showing the diffs of an argument between said editor and another is neccessarily helpful to the reassessment process or indeed your relationship with that editor. This is of course my own personal opinion, and I understand you feel you are only responding to what you perceive as incivility, but I wonder if leaving out those diffs would have been the better thing to do. Yours, Titch Tucker (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

True but after nearly a year it seams I can only be direct. I am glad that both conversations have been removed. But I doubt that keeping or leaving those diffs really made any difference, he probably just enjoyed that I reacted at all. If you wish you could read a small amount at User talk:Wangi#Scotland map... <sigh> again. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential Superpower

Hey. We're having yet another discussion on whether Brazil should be counted as a potential superpower or not. Please come and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Are we saying that an economic superpower is the same as a potential superpower? Deavenger (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There are many facets to a superpower not just economic but military & cultural influences are also important. According to the Superpower article its a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests or put another way a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon. Did that help? -- Phoenix (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. It's just that the entire Brazil section that actually have sources using superpower, it continually says economic, agricultural, or oil superpower. Not much besides that. And yesterday, I went through the EU, India, China, and Russia section removing where it only described the countries as a economic superpower. As there are still plenty of sources for EU, India, China, and Russia that describe those countries as superpowers, while talking about their economic power. Deavenger (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats why I listed all the sources so that they can be properly vetted since so many have cropped up recently. If there has to be a condition before the word Superpower appears then that is not a proper source for the article. It is about Potential Superpowers not Potential Economic/Energy/Agricultural Superpowers. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Also, I'm thinking of creating an article for Economic Superpower and recreating the Potential Great Powers article. What do you think? Deavenger (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
How many countries fall into the Economic Superpower mold? The current Great Powers & Brazil? Italy? That might be a hard one to keep reliable. After all thats why the Potential Great Power article was removed. If you want to try I have no objections... Though I think the Potential Great Power article has the potential of being more of a headache than its worth and might loose its encyclopedic neutrality very quickly. -- Phoenix (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I guess you're right. For the Potential Great Powers, I'm going to try to recreate it, but make some changes as I felt that the original Potential Great powers article used to much OR and SYN, and looked more like an advertisement for Brazil, which I'm afraid they're tyring to do in the Potential Superpower article. Deavenger (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins WP now Smashing Pumpkins taskforce

As you were listed as a member of the previously inactive Smashing Pumpkins WikiProject, I'd like to inform you that it has been reactivated as the Smashing Pumpkins taskforce. You can sign up here. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Superpower

Hey, there's an IP on the Superpower talk page saying how u.s is not a superpower, and anyone who thinks so has a lot of imagination and are following propaganda. I've been arguing with him, but I'm think he can't be convinced. Should I just ignore the Ips, seeing how he hasn't made any changes to the page? Deavenger (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

D'oh -- Phoenix (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Great power vote

Hey, there's a great power vote going on. Please come and add your two cents. Deavenger (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

D'oh -- Phoenix (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Highlander Wikia

Hi, I just wanted to invite you to contribute to the Highlander wikia at this address. So far I think I'm one of the few contributors, if not the only one.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

India as a great power

Hey Phoenix. I was looking over the encarta source, and I think they updated it by adding another paragraph at the very bottom. It even says "The growth of nuclear proliferation and the potential spread of nuclear weapons to new states has provided the opportunity for a second-tier power, India, to claim great power status". Do you think that we should add India as a great power (I didn't want to bring it up on Great Power talk page due to the fact that Chankya and By just finished a whole OR discussion and I don't want to accidently start up another one.) Deavenger (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Great Power" seems incompatible with "second-tier power". On the other hand, UK and France are second-tier powers as they are surely not on the same tier as the US. Ergo the Encarta article contradicts itself. Maybe there should be "great power claimants" section, for countries that claim GP status but whose claims are not supported by neutral sources. Viewfinder (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article said that due to nukes, it allowed an second-tier power to go to great power status. So it went from being a second rate to great. I'm not sure there should be a whole list of countries that claim they're great powers, but claims are not supported by a neutral source. As half the countries in the world think they're great powers. Iran even thinks they're a superpower. However, we could add a note that says that there are several countries that claim they're great powers, but are not usually acknowledged by academics and others as great power.
Anyway, back to India. I looked at some articles by the guy Chankya posted videos of, and found one where he lists the great powers as US, India, China, Russia, Japan, and the major European countries [2]. What do you guys think? Deavenger (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow thats new. Good idea to avoid the talk page. There is no reason to create another heated debate especially after the most recent conversation... Ok Let me check this out. Ah... Well here is an extract from the Encarta article in question:
Today’s great powers—the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Japan and Germany—with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons—also qualify as great powers. These seven states control over half of the world’s economy, 68 percent of world military spending, 27 percent of its soldiers, 95 percent of arms exports, and 99 percent of nuclear weapons. The only other states of comparable economic size are Italy and perhaps India, neither of which has the global outlook or military strength to qualify as a great power. India, which now has nuclear weapons capability, and Brazil are regional giants that have the potential to become great powers in the 21st century.
The United States dominates great-power relations as the world’s only superpower. Its economy equals that of the next three largest states combined—Japan, China, and Germany. Its military spending exceeds that of the other six great powers combined by more than $100 billion. The influence of the United States in the international political system is commensurate with its dominant status in the world. For example, international involvement in post-Cold War conflicts—such as the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the civil war in Bosnia that began in 1992—largely depended on U.S. leadership and demonstrated the profound gap in military capabilities between the United States and other great powers.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States became more assertive of its superpower status. As part of the government’s “war on terror,” President George W. Bush committed the United States to a policy of preemptive war—the use of force to attack potential threats before they are able to fully threaten the United States. This policy became known as the Bush Doctrine. Thus, the United States launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003 despite the opposition of great powers such as France, Russia, China, and Germany. See U.S.-Iraq War.
As U.S. power has grown, however, smaller states have gained the ability to challenge great powers in international affairs. The growth of nuclear proliferation and the potential spread of nuclear weapons to new states has provided the opportunity for a second-tier power, India, to claim great power status, and has allowed a small state, North Korea, to resist the will of the great powers. Globalization has provided opportunities for lesser powers and even for nonstate organizations, such as terrorist groups, to challenge great powers. Nevertheless, the size and significance of the great powers assures that they will remain the central actors in international relations.
The Bolding was mine of course. It appears to say up at the top that there are 7 Great Powers United States (a superpower and the most powerful), Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan and Germany. The article goes on and says that and one other nation India claims to be one but is actually a second-tier power. I hope that helps and I hope the direct text from the source can help avoid any confusion. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Also, the new discussion Teq opened up on the Potential Superpower page, would that break WP:Forum or whatever? Deavenger (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help :-) The recent conversation about India and China on the great power talk page was a Forum convo. To me, Teq's question seams innocent. At least at the moment. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I have a feeling he's going to cause us trouble. Worst part is, he probably won't take anything I say seriously, as I'm of Indian descent, despite the fact I'm American. He accused me of using journalists to post propaganda. Deavenger (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Well we must assume good faith for now, but it should be easy to tell if the conversation is no longer about improving the article and just becoming a debate that adds little to the articles worth. I hope that people wont hold your nationality or heritage against you. I've been through that a few times myself. It's not fun. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok. First, we have to find another sources for UK and France and Germany as great powers should we decide to keep them as [3] encarta is being taken offline.
Back to Teq, I'm finding it harder to Assume good faith about him, as his past history (based on his edits and talk page) he accuses me of adding propaganda, adding comments like "Of course, Indians tend to believe that what made UK and US rich was the language". Then ever since we removed Brazil due to the lack of non OR/SYN and reliable sources, the only edits he made to the article is to put slumdog superpower in the India heading. Deavenger (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Darn, there are few sources out there that talks so explicitly about the Great Powers and actually lists them that also passes WP:Reliable & WP:V. Well we can always use an archived copy saved at archive.org when that happens.
I am sorry I had no idea that you are being abused as such by Teq. I am assuming such comments are aimed at you? If this continues you must let Teq know that (s)he has crossed a line and is violating WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:EQ & even WP:VAN and if that does not work you must let an admin know and look over WP:DR because people should not have to put up with such things. If an admin can be involved it might make your life easier and possibly put Teq on probation for a bit. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. If Teq starts causing trouble on the page again, I would appreciate if you could talk to him, as he won't take me seriously. I mean, I can understand how he doesn't think India will not be a superpower (despite that all the facts he list are wrong), as I don't believe India is going to be a superpower. The only reason why I keep India there is because there are actual reliable non OR/SYN sources. Deavenger (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, after all we are all putting our free time here to better this encyclopedia, just let me and/or an admin know if things get bad again :-)
As for India, I believe it has a bit to go internally before its true power can be felt externally and since experts agree in its potential there is no reason why India shouldn't be listed. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The main thing keeping India from being a great power/potential superpower is internal problems like poverty or corruption. Anyway, a couple months ago on the Regional power page, I advised an IP on how to find reliable sources on Ethiopia being a regional power. While some of the sources might be OR (maybe), there are a couple that I think are reliable. And they're all fine sources, [4] this entire article talks about how Ethiopia is important to the region, and is called the status quo in regional politics. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] I'm not sure about these sources. What do you think, does this merit inclusion of Ethiopia as a regional power? Deavenger (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sooo sorry about the delay in my response. Ethiopia, well thats a new one for me. I will read over the links, but it will take a bit since I have quite a lot on my plate at the moment in real life. I'll let you know but the sources do look rather promising :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, nice job on the Great Power page. Sorry I haven't been able to contribute for a while, as I just got on vacation, but have to do several papers for scholarships and school. I'll try helping when I come back. Deavenger (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

A LOT of reading. I feel like I'm doing homework. I read over the first source but only skimmed over the rest.

So in all and like I said after brief glances it looks like there might be a couple that are good sources and back up the claim. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start working on the Ethiopia section. I think about.com has something on the reliable sources message board about that. As for the forum, I checked it out, it's not an actual forum, but more like a policy forum when I looked at it. However if you looked at it and disagree, we'll keep it out of the article. And about your question on whether being a stabalizer means being a regional power, that might be SYN even if we use an academic source. Sorry if this felt like homework to you. Deavenger (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, its nice to have someone ask for input :-) I checked out the forum article and your right its not an actual forum as I was thinking. Here is what it said:
  • At the moment, Ethiopia is clearly victorious in the regional power struggle and has demonstrated a considerable degree of military capacity and boldness.
    Terrence Lyons is an associate professor on conflict analysis and resolution at George Mason University and the author of a recent Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, Avoiding Conflict in the Horn of Africa: U.S. Policy Toward Ethiopia and Eritrea.
Does that mean that it is a regional power? Most likely. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New Potential Superpower

Hey, an IP added a new source to the superpower page that I decided to check out. It includes all the stuff about superpowers, including potential superpowers. If the sources is reliable (I think it is, though you're more knowledgeable then me), we can possibly add a new potential superpower. As the article lists India, China, Russia, EU and Union of South America as potential superpowers. Check it out and tell me what you think potential superpowers article begining. Deavenger (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for the complement but if you want to bone up on what construes a reliable source check out the wiki article on it, that should help :-) But I can say for sure that a good source shouldn't be sourced from wikipedia. If you check the bottom of the page it says Some of the information on this page come from a Wikipedia article and are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Privacy Policy - Spiritus-Temporis.com ©2005. Not only that the authors of the article in question are not listed. It looks more like a personal page than an academic resource. This is the first time I have ever heard about another USA (Union of South America). -- Phoenix (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't notice the fact that it said some of the stuff was from wikipedia. Well, I better remove it from the superpower page. By the way, did you ever get a chance to get an opinion on Ethiopia? Deavenger (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

The IP that has been causing trouble on the Great power page and Middle power page is back. So I decided to report him here. If the case is not completely solved yet before you get this message, please come and give your two cents. Thanks. Deavenger (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC) It's been moved to [14]Deavenger (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you covered it quite well actually. Don't know what else I could say, but let me know if you need any help :-) It would be annoying to have to protect this page again. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: IP edit warrior

Well, looks like the ANI was resolved before I got there. In the future, just use WP:AIV to report the IP(s) in question (repeated removal of sourced content is vandalism), and use WP:RFPP to request page protection, citing the long history of IP vandalism (hopefully getting them protected for a month or two). Hope this helps you in the future. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't quite sure where this particular situation belonged. I will remember that for the next time :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey again

Hey two things. I suggested on the Great Power talk page that the article might be ready for GA nomination, so please come and add your two cents. Also, there might be some edit warring on the superpower and potential superpower pages, as an IP 151.60.117.238 and related are pushing for EU to be a superpower, and accused us of spreading propaganda for the US and all that good fun stuff. The only reliable source he's posted so far is the book by TR Reid which we already posted. And look at all the fun comments he's made so far on the EU page [15]. Though it does not help him when he claims we're spreading propraganda, and the people in the EU are just quite. Just giving you a heads up, hopefully, one of the other editors will calm him down. Plus, he saids have short legs, I don't really get that. Deavenger (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on the Great power GA nomination. Real life got in the way but I have got the ball rolling. The quote you mentioned The US PROPAGANDA has legs shorter and shorter, It an odd statement but what s/he is trying to say is American propaganda proclaiming it as a Superpower is getting harder and harder for people to believe. I believe that either this user's native language is not English or s/he is a teenager. From the grammar my guess is it's the latter. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, he's from another country, and claims he's over 30, yet looking at his history of other pages, he's 12. Apparently, he's a suspected sockpuppet from a month ago or so, and the users at the EU page have opened up a case against him.
Anyway, I'm hoping that Great Power passes the GA nomination, then we could go to A class and then hopefully, get our first FA article for this project. Deavenger (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
He has started the review here. Deavenger (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Continuation from Template talk:Amg movie

Sorry it has taken me some time to formulate a reply. First, let me say that I understand the pride that can come from people using templates which you have developed. It is a sign that your work has been useful. I have built a few templates myself and can see where you were coming from. However this should not get in the way of doing what is the best for the encyclopedia. If there was a reason why continuing to use your template would break things on 15,000 pages (even if it was only for a few days) then that would absolutely not be the best way to do it, and your feelings must take second place to that. I hope you agree!

Yes, we all wanted the template to get fixed. But I found your actions problematic because you chose not to engage in discussion at the appropriate place, but instead pursued it at a different venue when it seemed you weren't going to get your own way. I detected a battleground mentality from you: it seemed you were acting against me and not with me.

Anyway I think I've said enough, and hopefully we can put this behind us. I'd welcome continued discussion on these templates, including {{AMG}}. There is still much work that can be done in simplifying and documenting them I think. Happy editing, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow that was calm, honest and brutal all at the same time and I actually don't mean that in any negative way. Clear and to the point, nicely done. Well what you said about me was not my intent. As you know from the talk page, for the last few months I have been in the background allowing others to fix the template. Most have said that they would get Bot assistance to fix this. But nothing happened. It just so happened that while I was browsing I came across the Bot page and I just decided to take action since no one else bothered. So actually I did take this to the appropriate place. (Ironically I actually believe that you might have brought this up at the wrong place... but I will get into that later) Frankly I didn't remember that you wished to replace this with your template. I do not see any harm in fixing a template (that was never broken to begin with) and now that we know that the template will not be broken at any time there should be no issue at all. The idea of combining AMG into one template seams a bit weird, why are you not trying to combine {{imdb}}? As you see {{imdb}} actually redirects you to {{imdb name}}. IMDB is the most used template out there and is actually the model for other movie/tv templates. Why the emphasis on AMG? Now if combining templates was the standard then your proposal would make more sense, but as it stands right now it isn't. And from what I can see you will still have to type about the same amount of info into the template so I don't really see any real benefit. But if you feel so strongly about this you really should bring it up at the appropriate wiki projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Films, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music and see what the consensus is after all they would actually be the appropriate places to go in cases like this. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Phoenix79. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Middle Power vandal back again

After over a month of protection, the Middle Power vandal is back again. This time, he's going after the new map. I added a new map with UK, France, Germany, and Japan in a dark color to say that those countries are sometimes comsidered Great Powers. However, he's back and adding that they are often considered great powers. And, I can't revert anymore otherwise I'll be breaking 3RR, and I'm probably going to report him. Please come and add your two cents. here Deavenger (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

<groan> -- Phoenix (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Phoenix79. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy first edit day!

HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE

Wishing Phoenix79/Archive 5 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

--I dream of horses (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Hey the GA review is for Great power is set to end this week. Let's try to get this to GA status. Deavenger (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for being aways for the past couple of months. Real life events have taken precedence over helping improve this encyclopedia & world knowledge. I hope that I will be able to get this article its GA status back, but at the moment I am unable to dedicate the time necessary. I hope that I will be able to help sometime soon. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rising Power

Hey, please come and add your two cents here. Deavenger (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names

Goodbye

Hey Phoenix. As of today, I'm retiring from wikipedia editing due to real life concerns such as my studies. I highly doubt that I will be coming back. However, I want to say it's been a real honor working with you. If you need anything for the potential superpower page or any other related pages, it should be on my user page. And if you ever want to talk, you can still email me.

The Original Barnstar
It's been a real honor working with you. Deavenger (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like real life has taken its toll on both of us recently. I do hope that you will return since you were an honest editor that was a great benefit to Wikipedia and just a good person. If anything good luck with your studies and may life treat you kindly. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick reply to you, thanks for your kind words. If you ever want to talk, email is still open. Have fun and may life and wikipedia treat you kindly, you're one of the few non biased editors working on the power pages. 65.29.15.134 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sad to see you not signing in :-( I thank you also for your kind words, especially the last one. If you e-mail me, let me know to check :-) I hope that your retirement is only temporary, and that you might just cut back to dabbling like I have recently. I REALLY want to work on the Great Power page, but I have limited time now. I also feel like I personally let you down since you were the only other committed editor left standing in the end. Sorry about that. But if I get a chance to edit that page I will try to let you know so that we can finally make that article a Great one :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
On the matter of me returning to wikipedia, we'll see. If you ever need info for the great power, middle or superpower page, send me an email and I could send you some information that might be needed, though i doubt i will be able to return to actually editing the page or arguing with nationalistic users. 65.29.15.134 (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great power

I'm getting the feeling we are slipping perilously close to another Chanakya scenario with Euro-German POV pushing in this case. I'm not sure we can get User:Lear 21 to stop being disruptive besides agreeing to this "proposals". Perhaps ignoring might work better. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope not :-( -- Phoenix (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
How about now? ;) Nirvana888 (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that it's time these guys were reported for repetitive incivility and persistent editing without consensus. Viewfinder (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Lets keep this proper and above the board. Post the appropriate warnings on their talk page if necessary. I am going to do that for KJohansson because his remarks were uncalled for. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose stereo speakers

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Bose stereo speakers. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose stereo speakers. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Governance

I noticed you are a member of the Power in International relations Wikiproject, could you asses Good Governance? Thanks much, SADADS (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank for reverting the vandalism on my user page - I appreciate it pal. Keep an eye on this guy. He's been making POV edits on this account and on his multiple IPs on the regional power article for a couple of weeks now. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bose wave systems

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bose wave systems, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose wave systems (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose Products Merge

Thanks for your input into the AfD for Bose stereo speakers et. al. As you may have seen, the result was No Consensus. I have started a discussion to find consensus on merging all of these articles together. Feel free to contribute your opinions here. Thanks! SnottyWong talk 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

I am completely baffled by your revert of my last edit to Great Power. It was an attempt to find a compromise that would satisfy all parties, but by reverting it you appear to have gone over to Lear's position. Viewfinder (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello Phoenix79. Please see WP:AN3#User:Phoenix79 reported by User:Snottywong (Result: ). You can reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed EdJohnston.
There seems to be a content dispute, but in all reality, I was pretty close to blocking Snottywong (talk · contribs). It's evident that between the user's nomination of the article for both prodding and articles for deletion, and then the subsequent actions on the article after both of those had failed, that the user has a very strong viewpoint on the issues covered by the article—one that is not necessarily shared by the other editors to it. --slakr\ talk / 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [16]
It looks like the issue has been resolved, for the moment -- Phoenix (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose SoundDock 10

Hi Phoenix

Re the sounddock - I feel that the geographical pricing policy adopted by Bose in this product is significant since it differs from both industry 'norms' and their own policies on the rest of their range.

For example the Wave radio - $349, £349. AccousticWave II - £999, $1,099.

I don't think any major economist is expecting the dollar to strengthen significantly against the pound/euro any time soon - 1.67:1 today - so to price a product at more in pounds than in dollars ($599, £699) at launch now is rather unusual. Perhaps it suggests the target market is much more robust in the UK, but again this would be contrary to all the more general economic indicators.

Would welcome your input on this, hopefully we can get something agreeable on this.

Thanks James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.216.210 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok cool. Just find a reliable source that talks about this discrepancy, not just the price but the issue you are trying to talk about, and that would avoid anyone trying to delete the article because of WP:OR or WP:SYN problems. It just survived a deletion request, no need for another one. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Would you do the honors of filing an SPI? Some quackpuppetry going on with KJ and Lear. Both accounts geolocate to Berlin. Same disruptive editing we've experience first hand. View my previous contribs and tags. I'll be busy for the next little while but hopefully we'll kill two birds with one stone. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that they are socks? I know that those ip's that pop up occasionally are them. You know that they have already claimed as much about us :-D I wonder which one of us they think is the Sockpuppet? I have never requested a check before, and feel a bit uncomfortable asking (since I am unsure), but if you really feel that it is necessary I will... -- Phoenix (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I applied the duck test. See: [[17]] and review the edits. There could well be more socks I haven't tagged yet. Nirvana888 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of accounts. Excuse my ignorance, so does that mean that you have submitted everything then? -- Phoenix (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't yet. All accounts have the same modus operendi; the same editing interests, same POV pushing/edit warring habits, same "see talk"/"update" edit summaries, same location Berlin and same ISP etc etc. All evidence is in the link cat I provided. One has to file it at WP:SPI preferably one with CheckUser to root out the additional socks - instructions are on the page. I appreciate it if you could but if you don't want to do it I can do it later but I'll be off next week and don't have time to compile the diffs. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay... I didn't see the reply (restarting the browser with the talk page as an open tab does have its drawbacks). But I'm sorry to say that I just dont feel confident enough to submit this. While I am certain that you are correct about the IP's, I am just unsure if the two user accounts are the same. I hope that you understand. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That fine I've done it myself. Check out and feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lear 21
I must also say I found these two "threats" quite amusing and doing nothing to help his cause: [18] [19]. What's your take? Nirvana888 (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Previous Bose headphones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Previous Bose headphones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous Bose headphones. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SnottyWong talk 22:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

    • Phoenix, I don't understand why you have to resort to personal attacks and gross exaggerations in your arguments. Please read my response on the AfD page. I would appreciate it if you edited your response to correct the exaggerations (i.e. four AfD's in one month, etc.) and delete the personal attacks and irrelevant information (i.e. admin noticeboard link and copy/paste, etc.). I started one AfD and one merge discussion (which was an extension of the no-consensus AfD). I did not start the AfD on Bose wave systems, that was Andy Dingley. I know that you and I don't have the greatest history with one another, but at the very least let's keep it civil, discuss the topic at hand, and leave each other out of it. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 12:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock

  • You are a Sherlock! Wow, I guess I am just too trusting and hopeful that people are trying to improve wikipedia... WOW! They were both Socks! -- Phoenix (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - if that was intended for me. Told ya so Phoenix. Now say sorry to Nirvana for having doubted me. just joking :D. I had actually strong suspected a deliberate and egregious breach of the community's trust once the tendentious editing, disruption, invidious personal attacks and other key evidence surfaced a long time ago but did not reveal this to anyone until a few weeks ago. But in all seriousness, even assuming the outer limits of good faith, I would not be surprised if Lear evades his 6 month sanction. Maybe this would be a good time to familiarize yourself with the mechanics of how to file an WP:SPI so that he can be dealt with as quickly as possible. Cheers!
BTW, thank you for reporting the legal threats and getting the IPs miscreants blocked. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep it was for you, since I am not worthy :-D I have always trusted you as an editor and now I have egg on my face. But I hope you understand that I didn't want to go through with WP:SPI if I wasn't sure. But I am SOOOOO glad that you were sure and that you perused the issue. As for the legal threats I just don't understand why the IPs were not permanently blocked! You are the man... or woman! -- Phoenix (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. And I was only toying with you earlier in good humor and do understand. In the same way, you are someone I respect and trust and whose work here is highly appreciated. Nirvana888 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Same back at ya Pal :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I'm sure we all feel foolish for having bought into his little game for a while. Though his vituperative remarks and glaring deception do make for some dramatic reading material. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Lear 21?

Hi Phoenix79, I've never interacted with you, but I noticed that you had problems with Lear 21 and his sockpuppets. I was wondering what you think about Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs), could it be a stand-by sock? More than one year ago we tried to change the map in the Germany article, section on occupation and division etc, to the one I reinstated earlier today [20]. When we tried that over a year ago Lear "all the best" 21 proved incredibly stubborn and resisted all our arguments (me and several others were in favor of the change, but Lear 21 was adamnant) so in the end we all gave up. Now a few hours later this user pops up and objects to the map[21]. Could it be a sock, you think? --Stor stark7 Speak 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I actually filed the SPI that confirmed Lear's sock. On first look, it looks quite plausible; they have the same editing interests and MO. I would encourage that you file a SPI because sock evasion of Lear's type is a serious concern. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nirvana seams to have a knack for this. If he thinks that this is Lear 21 then I would follow his advice. Hope that helps :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Another sock blocked: Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs). Lear is now indefinitely blocked. The following quote from my favorite detective might be most apposite for Lear: "It is one of those instances where the reasoner can produce an effect which seems remarkable to his neighbour, because the latter has missed the one little point which is the basis of the deduction." Nirvana888 (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow! Thanks for the Barnstar! It means a lot. Nirvana888 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I reverted [22] as well as this on my talk page [23] who were doubtless by Lear 21. I think we can all say good riddance. Nirvana888 (talk)

Lost screenshots

Your images do not meet the non-free content criteria, since they don't have any contextual significance (they don't illustrate anything that particularly needs a visual illustration) and they don't show anything that can't be shown through text alone. Since you objected to my removal, I have taken the matter to WP:Non-free content review#Two images on Lockdown (Lost). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics Task Force

Paralympics task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Please feel free to edit and or join. Bib (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hi, I just wanted to inform you to make sure you cite sources with all essential information. The references you added to The Smashing Pumpkins are lacking authors and publication dates. As this article uses the "cite web" templates, what you can do to make this very easy for yourself is to copy a completed ref from elsewhere in the article and use that as a template with which to properly format your new additions. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Blimey it took hours of research to find all those sources. Since no one else was willing to do the research I figured someone had to. Well next time I will endeavour to do just that :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Let's settle this here because this edit war on List of European countries by date of independence‎ is silly.

If you are going to undo what I wrote, please make sure exactly what I wrote before you undo the entire edit, the last edit you undid contained other edits that did not need to be undone.

In the article Kingdom of Great Britain#Name it discusses the argument as to whether the Kingdom of Great Britain was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and thus counts as being the United Kingdom rather than just a predecessor.

Please provide your arguments below.

McLerristarr (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually that revert was intentional since no other country listed does what you did, so I was trying to restore. Were you going to do the same for all nations?
Talking sounds like a good idea. If you are asking when the UK was formed, then you would simply have to go to the UK's article or the History of the United Kingdom article. Both state that it was 1707. But if you want to bring this to a higher authority I would suggest the Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to do it for all the countries, eventually.
The first paragraph of the History of the United Kingdom article says:
The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union of the kingdoms of England, which included Wales, and Scotland on 1 May 1707 in accordance with the Treaty of Union, signed on 22 July 1706, and ratified by both the Parliaments of England and Scotland each passing an Act of Union. The Union created the Kingdom of Great Britain, which shared a single constitutional monarch and a single parliament at Westminster. Prior to this, the kingdoms of England and Scotland had been separate states, though in personal union following the Union of the Crowns in 1603, with political, administrative and cultural institutions including representative governance, law systems, and distinguished contributions to the arts and sciences, upon which the United Kingdom was to be built. On the new, united kingdom, historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history." A further Act of Union in 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
My point is that before the 1800 Act of Union, it was just Great Britain. If you like, we could have both dates and provide an explanation in the notes column. McLerristarr (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok I am confused at the moment. You just quoted me a text that says The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union of the kingdoms of England, which included Wales, and Scotland on 1 May 1707... and earlier gave me a link to read that said Occasionally, the Kingdom of Great Britain is given the alternative name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which is often shortened to United Kingdom. There is substantial debate over whether the latter name is acceptable. The Treaty of Union refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain in several places.... My point has been that the UK's formation and creation was with the union of Scotland & England and the links you gave me back this up? History teaches that the UK formation was in 1707 and entire articles on wikipedia agree on this point. Ireland was included in the UK in 1801 but you are not arguing that the UK's formation date should be after Southern Ireland became a republic and the countries name changed to UK & NI? The Louisiana purchase added a great swath of land to the US in 1804 doubling its size... Now you are not suggesting that the US should have its formation date as 1804 or 1959 after Hawaii joined... But you are doing something similar in the case of the UK. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph I quoted says "The Union [of 1707] created the Kingdom of Great Britain... A further Act of Union in 1800 added the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." I think there is a historical difference between Great Britain and the UK, but it's arguable. I guess you could claim they're basically the same country just with different names. McLerristarr (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, but in the same paragraph it says "The history of the United Kingdom as a unified sovereign state began with the political union (...) on 1 May 1707"... There seam to be more agreement on 1707 then 1801 since all the articles on the UK all say that is was formed in 1707 and other places like the Times also say that it was created then. Do you want to take this to Talk:United Kingdom or someplace else? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I say we put it as 1707 and mention somewhere the importance of 1801. We could talk about it more on Talk:List of European countries by date of independence‎. McLerristarr (talk) 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
See also Talk:United Kingdom#UK formation date part 2
Sounds like an Encyclopedic move. Ok I have edited it. What do you think? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, sorted. Now that we've done extra info on changes to the UK, it should probably be done for all the countries. By the way, where did the date 1920 for the separation of the Irish Republic come from? I know that's what it says for Ireland's entry as well. Shouldn't it be the separation of the Irish Free State in 1922 since that's what the 1927 Act confirmed? McLerristarr (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok so I am not insane. I originally put 1922 but then I double checked Ireland on the article and it said 1920. I should have stuck with my 1st instinct and double checked that. Just so you see what I mean (and since I need to run) I'll let you change it :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Finished. Glad it never came to violence. McLerristarr (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For my part I think we both believed that the edit notes would be sufficient to convince the other. I'm glad that you decided to converse and allow us to lay our cards on the table :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of stuff to the page including an expanded notes section for the UK which I will eventually do for all the countries. Hope it's okay. Could you please verify it? Thanks. McLerristarr (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow that is going to take a while to complete. I edited it down a little bit for simplification. I would suggest to focus on what the article lists as its focus:
  • D = "dissolving" of a country or empire
  • M = "merging" of multiple existing countries
  • S = "splitting" off from a country or empire
The notes section sounds like a good idea where you can list a states official recognition, but I think that Ireland in the UK section should be listed as 1922. Though if you feel that 1927 is best that's fine. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Shannon ♫ (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Phoenix79

Hey, Phoenix79. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re OR great power

Thanks for closing the off-topic, OR discussions. I was going to do it sooner or later. Happy belated birthday! Hope you had a good one. Nirvana888 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1966 FIFA World Cup Final

I don't think that reverting without giving reasons is good style...

Anyway,

  • the claim that Bakhramov was accused of bias is unsourced and I've never heard anyone in Germany complaining about that. So, why keep that unsourced claim?
  • I cannot tell how far Lampard's shot crossed the line from the TV replay. How can anybody else? "about 0.5m" is WP:OR. It was a goal, and that's in the text. Speculation about how far it was inside, doesn't add anything of value.

So, I'm taking the freedom to set it back again. --Berntie (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was more concerned about the difference if the ball was apparently on the line or apparently on or just over the line. According to the Laws of the Game the definition of a goal is when "the whole of the ball passes over the goal line" [1]. So the argument had to be if it passed the line or not. The others looked correct and are in keeping with what I knew so it looked legit to me also. As Lampards goal it has been reported as 0.5m[2][3] or 2ft[4][5][6] in the news. And Germany's thought that Bakhramov was Bias is also widely reported[7][8][9][10] -- Phoenix (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ fifa
  2. ^ theengineer
  3. ^ eurosport
  4. ^ thefirstpost
  5. ^ independent
  6. ^ dailymail
  7. ^ goal.com
  8. ^ soccerway
  9. ^ independent
  10. ^ eurosport
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Phoenix79/Archive_5"