User talk:Phoenix and Winslow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk to me here. If you're abusive, your words of "wisdom" will be deleted mercilessly with no response. If you're really abusive, I'll leave it up and you'll be reported to the appropriate authority. If you're nice, I hope we can get a lot of work done together, and maybe have some fun too. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm welcomes from ALS, WD and JMHN below. Especially JMHN. I love you too man. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I hope I'm not being abusive...[edit]

I just came here to welcome you, the comment above took me aback a little. Um, here you go.


Welcome!

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A little insignificant Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH! 17:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not abuse![edit]

How's your battle with the professional disinfo agents coming on the Franklin Scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Stop.pngThank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. <-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Wikipedia's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!

Thanks! ~~~~

- Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear Mr or M/s Phoenix and Winslow[edit]

Apparently, according to some, you are a bad, bad editor, all of whose edits are sh*tty in some way or another. [Just wanted to bust ur never-abused-yet cherry.]↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Never abused yet"? Have you read WP:ANI lately? He's the proverbial messenger-who-was-shot.
64/Phoenix, live long and prosper. I've proposed a solution at WP:ANI that may be acceptable for all concerned. Please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see a phoenix rising from 64's ashes -- can any allusions be drawn from Winslow? (Guess I'll Google the name. BRB.)
Have come back with nothing. (Other than the supposed meaning of the original place name, related to that given- or surname, in Anglo Saxon as a hill belonging to a friend. [WINE > 'friend'; WINS > 'hill belonging to'?])↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a clue: "Phoenix" and "Winslow" are the names of municipalities in the state of Arizona. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The Winslow Motor Hotel is the closest motel to where I live (which I'd preface "not for nothing" except for the fact it is. Nothing, that is.)↜ (‘Just M E here , now) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Your little acorn[edit]

Regarding this edit[1] maybe you'd do better with a polite request on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' talk page or the article talk page, because carrying out a dialog by successive edit summaries doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Personally, I'm confused as to why it's a POV issue at all. Saying that an attorney claims she needs more time, or reporting that authorities carried away computers when exercising a search warrant, doesn't seem to be a big slant either way. In the long run what matters is whether they find and prove something, not the form and extent of evidence gathered in one particular search. Anyway, I think your overall series of edits improves the article so thanks for the good work! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours and topic banned for personal comments[edit]

You were warned just today about making personal comments. Despite that you made an unnecessary personal comment here. I'm blocking you for 24 hours and topic banning you from the Tea Party movement topic for seven days. That means you cannot edit any pages related to the Tea Party movement, including talkpages such as the moderated discussion; nor can you comment on the Tea Party movement anywhere on Wikipedia, including the talkpages of other users. Violations of the topic ban will result in blocks of increasing duration. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The hell? What am I missing in that comment that justifies this? Arkon (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Phoenix and Winslow (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The following was contained in an email to SilkTork: The block was unnecessary, as was the topic ban. I have no objection to you directing content. In fact, I welcome it. I was simply stating what I felt to be an obvious fact. I have been doing my best to help you move the project along at a faster pace, and make it easier for people to participate, which is why I started archiving the moderated discussion page (MDP), and why I became so frustrated when Casprings reverted the archiving and Ubikwit backed him up. I am also a bit frustrated by the fact that Ubikwit has not been the subject of a topic ban yet, when both North8000 and I have received topic bans, and now you have topic banned me twice. Ubikwit has jumped the gun on consensus twice, and you've been forced to ask him to self-revert both times. He did it once with the Perceptions spin-off article, and now he's done it with the lede of the main article. I would certainly have appreciated an opportunity to self-revert my edit of the mainspace rather than serve a week-long topic ban, and I'm sure North8000 would feel the same, particularly since our offending edits were far less substantive than the ones Ubikwit self-reverted. Regarding the alleged "psychoanalysis" of Ubikwit, this gentleman obviously has paper-thin skin and probably shouldn't even be editing in such a highly contentious topic area. I thought I had achieved a degree of rapport with Ubikwit, and was simply using him as an illustrative example of why we should not rely on academic sources to have the defining word on the Tea Party's agenda. I will not do it again. I am asking you to please remove the block and lift the topic ban, so that we can proceed with improving the article.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. In addition, ANY unblock would require restrictions identical to a topic ban, so any request that asks for that removal would be moot (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • Hang in there, P&W. Persecution is a hard pill to swallow, but strength comes from adversity. If interested, we can collab on the iced-DOJ article. I've been meaning to finish it off. Always seem to find a way to embark on less-gratifying endeavors, for whatever reason. TETalk 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allen West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agenda of the Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Agenda of the Tea Party movement[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Agenda of the Tea Party movement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Seeing it was me in the Moderated discussion that originally proposed the subarticle you are attempting to hijack, I'm going to have to take you to task.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Ubikwit, you had just as much right as anyone else to create that sub-article. You have just as much right as anyone else to edit it, at least for now. P&W went out of his way devising a method to satisfy your need for blockquotes at TPM when nobody else would (albeit, through footnotes). Now you have one better -- An entirely new article to add all the blockquotes you want. Where's the beef? TETalk 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You can follow that thread out by checking the material I've posted at the Talk page and DYK page, including links from the Moderated discussion where the creation of such a subarticle was first suggested by me and subsequently discussed. There has never been a need for a subarticle on the Agenda, only on the Constitution as it relates to the agenda.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct, and the content in Agenda of the Tea Party movement does indeed focus on the Tea Party members' understanding of the Constitution, and how it affects their position on such issues as the health care bill. The problem, as I see it, is that there's no established conensus among the academic community that the Tea Party takes an originalist view. Let's move this discussion where it belongs, on the Moderated Discussion (MD) page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalking[edit]

If another instance of stalking happens by the editor you mentioned just let me know.--MONGO 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic[edit]

User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long[edit]

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Tea Party movement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1865 words and 8 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

ANI notice[edit]

{{subst:ANI-notice} I've reported Ubikwit for his personal attacks on the PD. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you about?[edit]

Are you editing now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. You have new messages at Malke 2010's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed[edit]

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Phoenix and Winslow, you have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, specifically GoodeOldeboy (talk · contribs · logs). This is because you have used GoodeOldeboy to canvass like-minded editors, re-opened a closed DYK nomination that you had created, and vote-stack on on the talk page of Talk:Agenda of the Tea Party movement. Additionally, from a technical standpoint the two accounts are highly  Likely bordering on technically  Confirmed. It should be noted that it appeared you went through some lengths to attempt to avoid detection. As always, you can appeal this block by the use of the {{unblock}} template, WP:UTRS, or emailing the Arbitration Committee. Tiptoety talk 04:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)