PhoenixDev

Advice

Hi- I saw your comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. I support infoboxes too, but there's no point getting wound up about it- we had a long discussion on whether we should add one or not last year, and the result was no, and we all accepted that. Sometimes these discussions work- like on Kristen Stewart for example, and sometimes- like on Kubrick- we lose some. People have views that aren't the same as ours- but it's important we don't follow the mistakes of others by getting wound up and striking out- but accepting it and winning the battles we can. jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

jcc - The result of a discussion by encyclopedia editors on whether or not an encyclopedia should perform its singular purpose should not ever come out with a "no." Such a result could only be attained if people who really shouldn't be doing this job insist on trying to do it, and enforce their will on to others. PheonixDev (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Such as you. Cassianto^Talk 20:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, such as you. You clearly are not cut out for this. Sorry but that's just the truth, sooner you accept that, sooner you can move on. PheonixDev (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

And you are? Tell me, how many Fearured Articles have you produced within the 20-or-so edits you've made over the last two years? Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to think that has value for some reason. If you don't get the basics, you don't get it. Simple as that. You can be as flowery as you want, but you seriously don't get the basics and it's not really hard concepts to grasp here. PheonixDev (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No you're right. Thank you for your 21 edits (15 of which are on talk pages). You have improved the encyclopaedia no end. Cassianto^Talk 23:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The amount of edits you've made don't matter if you literally have no understanding of the purpose of an encylopedia. Flowery writing doesn't make for a good encyclopedia, having quick access to basic information and condensing the more in depth explanations to as little as possible are how they are written. You are against the user experience, you don't seem to believe in the idea of a user at all. This is troubling. This is why you need to take a break. PheonixDev (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

With wording like "don't matter", I can tell you're a seasoned encyclopaedia expert. Nice work. Cassianto^Talk 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yea, tear apart his conversational grammar instead of actually responding, that'll get em' PheonixDev (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto if I could block you, I would. I'm going to ask you very firmly to leave me alone. Cease responding to any and all edits or comments I make here or (at least) on my talk page and we can go on our separate ways. Your perspective is not needed, neither here or on any page, and your tone is not acceptable. I have heard from others that you have been banned several times, and you need to take that into consideration - the world isn't wrong, you are. Consider this your final warning. PheonixDev (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully jcc, having read the archives, there was no consensus, not a consensus not to add the infobox. While the result is functionally the same, it makes a big difference to the attitude that we should have to future discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever tone this Cassianto fellow that insists on harassing me in every single place I post in is exhibiting not the tone we should go about things either. PheonixDev (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Yep my mistake sorry- ironic given I pointed out the distinction myself over at AN. Happy new year- and thanks for all the work around NPP this year. jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom statement request

Hi Phoenix, an ArbCom request has been filed regarding Cassianto's toxic behavior regarding Infobox discussions, which I saw you've been a victim of, even just on this very page. If you have anything to say about the effects of Cassianto's behavior on you, then I implore you to make a statement on the ArbCom page. --Volvlogia (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement at arbitration case

Hi PhoenixDev. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means that I administer and manage the arbitration process (on behalf of the Arbitration Committee). I saw your recent statement on the Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case. You made your statement in the preliminary statement section, where statements are given on whether the Arbitration Committee should accept or decline to hear the case. Because the case is now open, there are places to present evidence and propose findings on the basis of that evidence; other statements about the case are also welcome at the case talk page. Arbitration rules require me to remove your statement in the wrong location; you are welcome to make statements that are supported by evidence on the other pages mentioned above. (For a guide to "diffs" and presenting evidence, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide.) For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, just an FYI (not on behalf of the Committee) because I saw Volvlogia's post above: A few editors have suggested that Volvlogia's actions in asking you, along with many other Wikipedians who may share Volvlogia's views, to make arbitration statements unfairly skewed the arbitration proceedings in violation of the Wikipedia policy on canvassing. You are welcome to make any statement you wish to (in compliance with policy), and to my knowledge, no administrative body has yet ruled that the notifications were (or were not) a violation of policy. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that! I don't really understand Wikipedia's proceedings as much as I'd like to :(

As for the second bit, I think if there's an arbitration case you do want to go and find people on both sides, right? I bet you that Cassianto was going around doing the same thing. You want to find witnesses for/against, but I do see why there'd be a rule (though I don't agree with it.) Thanks for the heads up! PheonixDev (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Diffs

See: WP:Diff. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. 174.255.195.117 (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Binding of Isaac: Four Souls, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 15:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)