User talk:Lexi Marie/Archive6

You got the wrong version :)

Thanks for updating Template:NoMultiLicense. Unfortunately, what you have put is an earlier, rejected proposal of mine. As you can see at Template_talk:NoMultiLicense, the (supposedly) better version is:

I am content with licensing my contributions only under the [[GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]]. I believe that introducing other incompatible licenses complicates the legal situation of Wikipedia, so I choose not to do it.

Therefore I ask you to update with the text given here. BTW Maybe there should be a comma between "other" and "incompatible", I dunno, haven't got across to punctuation in my English classes :( . Or maybe you just happen to like the old version better? Sorry for the wasted time... and please answer here. --logixoul 22:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Sorry. Fixed now. :D I don't think there should be a comma there. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.--logixoul 22:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy

Phroziac, You appear to be promoting advocacy in Arbcomm. I'd ask you then to consider participating as an advocate in the Price Anderson case. We (Zen and I) want to protect the right to include unpopular facts (Being well-sourced) about the documented risks of nuclear power and the plan to hold taxpayers accountable for safety violations by the industry. Your fellow immoralist Katefan0 and Co. having failed to convince two mediators on the merits have initiated an Arbcom (citing several contents disputes as foundation). I'd like to provide an adequate defense without getting pulled in to an entertaining if unproductive fishing expedition. - it occurred to me that the ADA program might spare the Arbcom an unnecessary mud-wrestle. Best, Benjamin Gatti 04:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Battlefield

Don't post anymore of your anti-Semitic crap on my talk page Battlefield 10:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (User is responding to my {{test}} waring)

This user is giving me a somewhat hard time with comments such as the one above. User has already made a few rather disruptive edits ([1], [2], [3]) and seems to be a newbie hence I ask for you could explain him as he wont listen to me. I also like a temporary protection on Category:Anti-Semitic people during the vote. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Essjay has already taken care of this. User seems disruptive and uncivil. :/ --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

♥ CHOKORETTO? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

mmmmm --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wings

I hereby award you these wings as they represent your character best, glad you are still with us. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Kawaii. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I hereby second this, and hope that I can work with from you now on in the future. Feel free to visit my talkpage, I am almost always online and I try to respond promptly. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wishes

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I'm involved in a what you could call a copyvio revert war. The user that kept removing the tag has finally registered and added a reason why he thinks it's not a copyvio. I'm still not convinced this is the case and would like some advice on how to proceed. For now I've posted a reply and both the article's and the user's talk page, but did not re-add the copyvio tag. Hirudo 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Article: Pandit Bhajan Sopori Hirudo 22:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance Hirudo 23:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Greetings Phroziac, I wish to offer my gratitude for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with the final tally of 65/4/3. If you would ever desire my assistance in anything, or wish to give me feedback on any actions I take, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Hey, girl! Thanks again for all the support at the R/C wiki. See you there! Best, Lucky 6.9 01:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Diggin' the new signature! I need to fancy mine up a bit. - Lucky 6.9 04:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for an advocate

I would like a advocate in resolving a dispite with Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin and taking further action if needbe. If you are prepared to help me form a case, please let me know! Thanks! Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Toolserver

The toolserver MySQL database is lagging by 29617 seconds, and you've had a query running for 2 days 12 hours 25 minutes 29 seconds. It kinda looks like you might have a script running a broken query. Please look into it for us. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... --AllyUnion (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious though, what were you doing that was taking so long? :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was attempting an inner join with pagelinks, which apparently is a bad idea. The results through pagelinks is too much. It apparently doesn't take much to query the database to generate a table of redirects only, but it takes forever to get references for a redirect page in pagelinks... --AllyUnion (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject - Wikipedians Writing an Encyclopedia

Hi, Phrozaic. I saw this WikiProject and can't quite figure it out. Is it just anyone who wants to write an encyclopedia? If so, isn't this almost everyone? If you could respond at my talk page, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Think Fast 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. --Think Fast 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Deals on Wheels!

Okay -- its not encyclopaedic, but it sure gave me a chuckle. Thanks. -- Shinmawa 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Condi

Phroziac, sorry to bomb your page, but I don`t know how to send a message. Just wanted to thank you for asking nicely and let you know I will quit with the vandalizm (I hit condi rice`s page). Condi certainly deserves it, but you`re right, that`s not what wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.178.146.249 (talk • contribs) 10:53, January 8, 2006

Let 'em vote

I'm happy for them to vote the way they want to vote. It's good to see where they stand. Everyking 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

About ArbCom

Heh, hi there. Apparently, i'm not allowed to vote for arbCom because i'm not an admin.. In which case.. why the heck does the message appear for all users and not just admins? and/or why doesn't it say that at the top of the page? (Cyrius said i've not got suffrage) Wierd. Anyway, good luck!

Mr Spum 09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nuclear war

Thanks for helping cool down, but sadly enough, I'm afraid I don't think it would actually help reach an eventual resolution. On the other hand, I'm curious to know if sysops are granted discretionary power to block certain users without going through all those procedures. — Instantnood 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. User:Mindspillage's motion may not help much. IMHO it would only delay the issues from reaching a real resolution, and would make the situation even worse. I sincerely hope input from the community that I desperately requested for a few times would, nevertheless, be drawn as a result of her motion. Only with the assistance from the community can the trouble be solved with a proposal that everybody would be happy with. — Instantnood 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage Protection

My userpage is not protected, my infobox is protected though... is that what you meant? -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had only blocked it from moves. That's allowed, right? Thanks. -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm just paranoid... -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I should keep it protected to deal with any vandalism. I don't think there is a problem because I regularly deal with vandals and I don't want to give them the chance to vandalize my page. I think users who deal with vandalism should have to protection and since a user page is not a wikipedia article there shouldn't be a problem. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected my user page as requested. If vandalism re-occurs I will protect again. Sixty acts of vandalism in a short period (due to my work in RC patrol fighting vandalism), is way too much. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phroziac. I protect my userpages because, logically, I'm the only one that should ever edit them. Thus, there is no logical reason to unprotect them. I initially protected them after a spate of vandalisms, and keeping them protected has saved me a truckload of headaches. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I have read the protection policy, and it does not explicitly prohibit users from protecting their user pages. My page has been vandalized in the past by pranksters, and I don't want others messing with it. I am of the firm opinion that what users do with their own user pages is up to them. David Cannon 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review

Thanks for letting me know, I'll go take a look. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

New AMA poll

Please have a look at the proposed election parameters under the section entitled An election proposal... and cast a ballot. Wally 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Extc

I don't think he has reformed: diff frim Islamist terrorism Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Now he's working from User:129.7.35.202, which I have blocked for an hour: diff. I don't mean to keep pestering you with this, but I'm reluctant to reblock him if you have hope he'll come around. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Extc

Can you take a look at this users continued attitude issues, they were blocked earlier (or their IP was) by another admin for remaking the change to the consensus tag I had earlier reverted, once the block expired they changed it again. I have repeatedly asked them to refrain from doing so, yet here they do so again with the edit summary "fix vandalism n lies by pgk", I have no interest or care in the matter (Beyond preventing disruption on Wikipedia). I have not undone it or taken any other action, but this is wearing a bit thin. Thanks --pgk^(talk) 22:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Extc

Hi, I unblocked Extc, a user that you indefinitely blocked. While I agree with the block, a few of us talked to him on IRC and he agreed to discontinue the behaviour that he was blocked for. Additionally, you should avoid using that "you have been permanenetly blocked" boilerplate, unless they were blocked for vandalism. These users come on IRC complaining that they were blocked for vandalism, when the "accusation" was just someone using a template that said something other than they intended. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

His last few edits: [4], [5], and [6]. I don't think there was a single useful edit since you unblocked him. Anyway, it's in your hands now... Owen× ☎ 01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome; wish we had an opportunity to meet under slightly less volatile circumstances.  :) Good luck with that mess. KrazyCaley 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I hereby reward you this barnstar to cheer you up, and to spread the love! J.Spudeman 17:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

No idea how to go about this, but your page and your listing on the Advocat list gave the impression you are actually interested in getting involved in other people's dirty laundry. ;) Ok, here is the issue the Holodomor page is currently stuck in a revert war. There is no going forward with things, as one party -- of course the one I oppose, how could it be mine? -- appears utterly resilient to reason. So, since I have gathered that Arbcomm at this point may be too early, I thought of getting an advocat instead. So, could you please have a look at things?

The user User: Andrew Alexander is trying to include a particular wording into the opening paragraph of the Holodomor article, which is opposed for -- I'd say good -- reasons by the majority of other editors, such as User:Irpen, User:172, User:KubanKazak, and myself User:Dietwald. The issue has degenerated into a revert war and is becoming annoying.

Thank you in advance for having a look.

Dietwald 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, on all counts. Dietwald 01:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up on the tags. I don't get it. I'm too dumb. Dietwald 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

POTW

FINALLY! :-) Wikipedia has become just a little bit better... Karmafist 05:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Message from you

What is this message?

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UVnet (talk • contribs) January 27, 2006

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower ^háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

DC streets

An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-

Thank you, even if -Ril- isn't CheeseDreams, though I am quite certain he is, not having him around is a boost to the entire project. - SimonP 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP inasmuch as -Ril- has been a rather...vexatious...contributor to this project. I'm not sure that the identification of -Ril- as a CheeseDreams sock is firm, though, and it would seem that the ArbCom isn't willing to make that statement either. You might want to consider amending your block notices on -Ril-'s pages to reflect that. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that we're better off without -Ril-; I just didn't want to see to train wreck down the road where a Good Samaritan (*ahem*)declares, "Phroziac is a rouge admin who falsely blocked -Ril- when he wasn't really certainly a sock! Abuse! Abuse!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have some serious concerns about this block. First of all, since when do we block people indefinitely based on suspicion alone? David Gerard, who I think you'll agree is one of our best sock checkers, has expressed doubt that Ril is in fact CheeseDreams [7]. Some of Ril's edits are very controversial, but I see no evidence that he is so disruptive that he needs to be banned immediately without a hearing. Compare this to the treatment other highly problematic editors have gotten: User:GreekWarrior, whose typical edits look like this or this, received only a six-month block after numerous warnings and shorter blocks. Can anyone provide a justification for this discrepancy? I'm trying hard to think of an explanation for this issue that assumes good faith, especially considering Ril's recent strenuous criticism of Arbcom and the Clerk's office. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also asked for comment about this block on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would appreciate if you would post a defense of your decision there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you did that. The evidence was tenuous and if there was a case opening he or she would need to defend him/herself. I find the encouraging words about how he or she needs to go anyway (and even coming from an arb) worrying. I have always found the user to be sensible (with the exception of the "signature fascism" silliness), raising legit concerns and questions—contentious, yes, but some of the most powerful users on the site are also highly contentious. Everyking 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Election

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)