User talk:El Sandifer: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:55, 12 June 2006 editCrum375 (talk \| contribs)Administrators23,963 edits Hivemind← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:19, 29 November 2024 edit undo67.209.128.120 (talk) Notice of redirect discussion at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion Tag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Largely inactive on this project, but, you know, leave a message if you want.
	Gone fishing. Back Thursday or when some sanity is restored here - whichever comes first. ] 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	== ~~Admonishment~~ ==		== Requesting inputs ==

			@] , Requesting your inputs @ ], if the topic interests you. Thanks.
	Just to be clear, I accept that admonishment totally in the spirit with which the RfArb was raised. I look forward to your continued input at ], especially in light of the renewed interest in the matter, and the hopes that a reasonable outcome will be achieved. <br/>]]] 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			<small><small>I came across your user profile from your Jan-23 edit to ] since I tried to search active editors engaging on project talk page .</small></small>
	== Mythbusters Season 4 delete ==
	Saw you marked that page for deletion. I'm trying to get some discussion on it.
	] Can you do me a favor and fill in the date/time thing on that deletion infobox? I don't know what you intended to have in there. ] 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
	==Apology on Log==
	I got a quick message from NSLE and also saw the block log in the corner of my eye, so please excuse the allegation there. All I wanted is ultimately to get where we're going now apparently --DRV. I also don't mind what SCZenz did, I probably would have done the same thing in his situation.

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	This was ultimately what I was talking about before. When you have one person who thinks that a particular end justifies a any method, and another user that believes the opposite end justifies any method, you get what we just got there. That's the path Kelly took, that's the path you took, that's the path I've taken many times because I felt there was no other way. Quite frankly, i'm tired of feeling that I have to take that path, but I probably will again if I feel there's no other way because that's just my personality. Let's make a way. Not just for us, but for everybody on here. ] 12:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	== Snow, could you take a look at ==
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2023\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	] and possibly add a comment, if you feel so inclined? ] 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	== My actions over Marsden's block duration ==

	Hi, Snowspinner, I have ] so you can express any comments you have about my actions regarding the block duration of Marsden. I've attempted to fairly summarise the events and I've justified my actions. Based on the outcome of the comments given on the RFC, I'll take appropriate action afterwards. Thanks in advance for any comments you make. ] (] \| ] \| ]) 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Wheel wars ==

	In the light of recent controversies I have done some investigation into wheel warring, and have found you to be one of the three most often involved parties. As I believe wheel warring is disruptive to the Wiki, I have requested the ArbCom to look into this. Please take a look at ]. ]]] 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Some loose ends==
	I hope you will find the time to respond to ] sooner or later. If you wish to discuss it here on your talk page, or on mine, instead of over at the arbitration talk page, that's fine with me. I just want to understand your way of thinking about the issue, and I would appreciate to hear your thoughts about the course of action you took on the way to this particular arbitration case. I hope that the fact that I am being critical of your actions will not stand in the way of a honest conversation about them. Thanks, — ] ] 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) / — ] ] 09:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

	== RE: Copyvio images ==

	Apologies for those images I used in those userboxes. I've amended my errors to comply with the Misplaced Pages copyright policy, and will do my best to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

	I do have a question though - who sets the rules on Misplaced Pages for how images are to be used in certain situations, and are these rules ever revised? For instance, hypothetically speaking, could these rules on fair use images be changed sometime in the future, and if so, how would one go about starting a discussion on making rule changes?
	] 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites) ==

	Hi, I've rewritten ], leaning heavily on ] for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, I hope you will read the new version and comment on the ]. ] ] 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Barnstar for Knowledge Seeker ==

	I was just going to complain that you never gave me one for the initial block on ]. But anyway it is nice to agree with you (it might even become a habit) --] ] 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

	:I thought you were more respectable than this, Doc. You really should keep this stuff in IRC rather than flaunting your arrogance in front of the whole of wikipedia. If anyone deserves a barnstar in regards to this situation, it is I, not you. --] 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

	== AMA ==

	Hello, you are receiving this message because your name is on the list of members of the ]. There is a poll being held at ] for approval of a proposal for the revitalisation of the association. You are eligible to vote and your vote and input are welcome. ] 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Problems? ==

	{{Esperanza Fhloston}}
	I hear you've got some stress problems and you've gone on a wikibreak. Rest up, and I hope you come back soon :) —]]] ] 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Or perhaps you are back. Either way, hope you feel well soon :) —]]] ] 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	== DCV unblocked ==

	I have unblocked ] because I can find no valid reason on ] for her to be blocked. I have mentioned this on ] as well. --] (]) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Your personal attack against me. ==

	Please do not make ] like this, as it is not ]. --] 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Swearing on talk pages==
	Hi. Your comment on the talk page of ] is ambiguous and likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of banning users for swearing. It appears as if you are telling users that they are ignoring blocking policy by swearing. If that was not the meaning you intended, I think you should clarify. Thanks. ] 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Undoing other admins' blocks ==

	Hi Snowspinner, I feel I've noticed blocks being undone without discussion more and more of late, and I feel it's very damaging, so I've started a discussion about it at ]. Your comments would be appreciated. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

	== development model for templates ==

	Extract from Tfd of qif:

	:''There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. Adrian Buehlmann 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)''

	::''Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)''

	I was not thinking about edit wars. Just that anybody can come and fiddle around on for example book reference (BTW I'm not thinking about Neto removing qif, he has the license). That "everybody can" fiddle creates an enormous pressure for new features on those kind of templates. It's comparable to the ususal inclusionist track on articles. With templates, all artiles including a template are immediately affected (possibly with a DB lock if use is enough high). BTW you can answer here (if you need to). I'm watching this page. ] 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Arbcom candidate userbox ==

	Greetings. I've made a new ] for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
	:'''{{tl\|User arbcom nom}}'''
	If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Don't add fuel to the fire ==

	I have had enough trouble with assorted other folks piling on to attack my user page. You really should know better than to vandalize my user page. I am frustrated that there are so many admins with such poor judgement. I would appreciate it if you would keep to writing the encyclopedia, and keep your (malicious?) editing away from my user page. Thanks. --] 10:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

	== RFC/KM ==

	You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at ]. ]\|] 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Metatemplates ==

	In the spirit of metatemplates, I would like to hear your opinion on particular piece of convolutedness. ]]] 11:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Do not missuse you admin privileges ==

	On ], stop what you are doing, it's forbidden for you to revert to your preferable version, and then protect the page, you must unprotect the page at once and revert your changes at once. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 16:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
	:You havn't replied, but I must inform you that you are distruplting[REDACTED] to prove your point and you are abusing your admin priviledges. If you do not restor the template, you might get an RfC on you. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

	I have filed an RfC against you now ], sorry, buy you gave me no choices. <sub>→<font style="color:#975612">]</font><font style="color:#325596">]</font></sub> 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
	*The RFC has been removed from WP:RFC for lack of certification. Unless Snowspinner objects, I'll also delete the RFC as well. --]] 19:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	== The future of template book reference ==

	Hi. May I ask you to contribute your opinion on ]. Is my proposal ok or what should happen with book reference from your point of view. Please respond there. Thank you. --] 18:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Comment ==

	Hello Phil. I thought I'd drop by to explain why I mentioned administrators in my statement in the first place. I don't expect you to change your vote, and that's not why I'm here. Over the past year, I've encountered many situations where sysops acted boldly in situations that were not in the least bit justifiable. Most of these eventually came before the Arbitration Committee, but it took months and repeated cases before the abuses of power finally ceased. Longevity and position are not a licence to dictate, but I think that's forgotten sometimes. Anyway, that's all. I'd encourage you to read my expanded statement, which was made in response to Fifelfoo, if you haven't already. I think it represents a fuller explication of my views. Best, ] ] 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

	Thanks for your response; I'm quite content to be disagreed with so long as I've been understood :). And yes, I suspect you're right that a written justification of decisions would prove impossible, but I think it would still be worth trying. ] ] 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

	==] chatter==
	Phil, can you do something about the chatroom discussions at ]? Talk pages are to discuss editing, not for idle and idiotic speculation. Thanks. -- ] 10:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Arbcom for Dummies ==

	''elements cross-posted''

	: Looks good. I've corrected the capitalisation (sorry, but it's become a pet hate of mine <tt>;-)</tt>), but other than that...
	: ] ] 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

	Oh, gosh. Very practical advice indeed, and mostly true. I wouldn't have stated most of those things in such blunt terms, at least not for a public document; I would tone a fair bit of it down (I'm speaking from the perspective of a community-builder, not a writer). The gist, however, is entirely accurate. If I feel so inclined and you're game I may try to tear it apart and defang it later. ] ] 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Username ==

	I noticed you attempted to change your username from snowspinner to "Phil Sandifer" for some odd reason. My preference lies with snowspinner; its catchy and less generic-sounding. :) -]<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	== RfC move into your userspace ==

	Per your request, I've moved uncertified RfC 4 into your userspace (]). ] \| ] 19:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Please see ]. ]\|] 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Expert undeletion ==

	If an expert thinks a topic is notable, or that an article should be kept, surely that expert can site ] sources? Doesn't your statement here, if you act on it, open the way to ]. Will you accept ] as a verifiable expert in ] for example? if not why not? Please reconsider this policy. Do you have cases where experts cited proper sources and were ignored? if so, lets fram a way to deal with such cases, without this blanket policy of simply accepting an expert's unsourced say-so. Or if you mean to insist on sources, say that, please. ] ] 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Jack Sarfatti==
	(''copied from my user talk ] ] 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)''):

	I would not be inclined to take Sarfatti as an expert, no. And in general I would not consider people experts on themselves for exactly this reason. ] 01:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
	:I dopn't mean an expert on himself, but an expert on ] in general. After all, he does hold a docterate in that field, and has published numerous articles in peer-reveiwed journals, some of which have been praised by people with significant reputations. If this is not enough to qualify a person as an expert, what '''objective''' standards would so qualify a person? And if the standards are not objective, the whole idea is in trouble, IMO. Perhaps you can see some of the reasons why I think this case shows that people with expert credentials are not always reliable sources, and your proposed course of action is a major mistake. Please don't act on your proposed "expert undeltion" or "expert early closure" principles. ] ] 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Taking up the Torch and what not==

	Listen, I appreciate the friendly advice when it comes to my "picking up the torch" for Nobs, but this is a bit different. Despite CBerlet pleas to the contrary, I am not making personal attacks, something which Nobs was accused of in the RfArb. I am not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and I am most certainly not turning the article on ] into a battle ground. What I am doing is making sure that Berlet's strongarm tactics dont allow him to trample on every article he deems its his right to. I think that if you go over the crux of the debate on the related article you will find that my point is a very valid one, namely that Berlet has not substantiated the inclusion of the material is is attempting to cram into every article in dispute.

	Nobs was banned for his conduct, not his contributions, which were very solid. If only every article could be the subject of this much real debate, then perhaps every article might be worth reading.

	By the way, an absolutely, positively, 100% not a sockpuppet for anyone, and vicey vercey.

	Later. ] 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Deletion broken? ==

	You've claimed on ] that many people involved in the deletion/undeletion process equate a deletion vote with "salting the earth" against any future articles. Since I haven't been following those processes closely for the past months, I would appreciate it if you could point to some discussion indicative of this stubbornness. Thanks. ]]] 10:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)



	== Loose ends ==

	Hi. Did you forget about or is there some other reason you are not responding? Thanks, — ] ] 11:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	As you'll recall, I argued in favor of contacting the developers for clarification (in particular, regarding the extent to which meta-template use should be reduced) before implementing drastic measures on the basis of Jamesday's vague remarks. You claimed that the developers' will was clear and unambiguous, and that it would be foolish to waste their time by bothering them. You also strongly opposed my RfA, claiming that I "was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue." When I politely requested that you correct this flagrantly false statement, you ignored all but the first of my messages (to which you replied with <span class="plainlinks"></span>).

	Well, here's what Brion (the lead developer) <span class="plainlinks"></span>:

	<div style="border: 1px solid maroon; margin-right: 80px; margin-left: 80px; padding: 12px; background-color: #fffafa">
	There's a lot of talk about this 'policy' which attempts to divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details.

	Complicated templates-within-templates generally ought to be thought twice about before being used, because they can be confusing and fragile. There are some good notes about that on this page; please don't go all willy-nilly with illegible code just because it sort-of works.

	There are other notes on this page about server performance which are not necessarily clear or well-supported. In particular, there's no known evidence that moderate usage of meta-templates has any noticeable impact on server performance.

	While there are potential issues with cache invalidation, that's a separate issue which can be separately solved -- and is little better with "regular" templates.

	I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time '''do so based on their ugliness and fragility'''. Please don't go around claiming "the developers" laid down the law and said nobody can use meta-templates because they hurt the servers; that just isn't true.

	--] 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	—] 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

			== Some bubble tea for you! ==
	:This seems rather beside the point, since, well, A) Jamesday is the one who has flatly said to depricate meta-templates, and B) Brion STILL comes down against meta-templates there. Or did you have some other, more arcane point you were trying to make? ] 06:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	::1. Jamesday asked us to "reduce" the use of meta-templates. To the best of my knowledge, he never asked us to wipe them out of existence (nor did he specify the extent to which they should be "reduced").
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| nothing to do with[REDACTED] but i love the thoughtfulness and granularity of your doctor who writing - like, it's a small thing, but it takes remarkable dedication to do something like "only name blog posts after fragments of quotes from any doctor but the subject of the post" consistently across a decade. (and your 'the god complex' post fundamentally changed how i thought about the episode!) ] (]) 01:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
			\|}

			:Thank you! ] (]) 04:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
	::2.You claimed that the developers (not merely Jamesday) had agreed that meta-templates harm the servers. I argued that such a stance was not readily apparent, and that we should attempt to consult the other developers (for clarification) before jumping to conclusions. You told me that there was no valid reason to waste their time (because their unified will was clear), and my refusal to blindly accept your interpretation of the situation was labeled "ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue." Now, Brion has explicitly indicated that the developers (as a unit) do '''''not''''' agree that meta-templates are inherently harmful to the servers, and have '''''not''''' condemned their use. He also criticized the attempts to "divine meaning from things other people have said rather than just asking for details." Attempting to "divine meaning from things other people have said" is precisely what I opposed, and "just asking for details" is precisely what I advocated.

			== Tron Ares ==
	::3.The meta-templates have been replaced with CSS hacks that are '''''FAR''''' uglier than meta-templates. I had assumed that this was a necessary evil, but now I'm not so sure. Brion has indicated that meta-templates "ought to be thought twice about before being used." I agree (and would extend the same standard to any type of complicated template syntax), but that's hardly the same thing as outlawing their use. I've seen some pointless implementations of meta-templates, but many are well worth tolerating the esoteric nature of their code (assuming that Brion's comments are accurate).

			The film's infobox highlights they are being credited as ]. Simply articulating the band members in the Music section is not misleading or tricking people into thinking they're being credited as Reznor/Ross. ] 21:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
	::4. For the record, I'm not saying that we should rush to restore the meta-templates. I'm saying that we should have gotten our facts straight (which we ''still'' need to do) before hastily turning the place upside-down. This is what I argued in the first place, and you acted as though I was recklessly denying an incontrovertible truth.

			==Welcome back==
	::—] 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
			Nice to see you around once more. All the best: ''] ]''<small> 22:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC).</small><br />

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	:::Just to remind you: no developer has advocated the use of meta-templates. ]</nowiki>]] 20:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::Likewise, no developer has advocated the use of CSS hacks that produce incorrect output in any non-CSS-capable browser.

	::::Brion has now indicated that "conditional 'if'-like constructs can be very easily done in the software." Had we consulted him in the first place (as I suggested), we probably could have prevented a great deal of unpleasantness. —] 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::::We had (multiple times). Eh, no: it was Phil Boswell on wikitech-l (ok so not directly asking Brion). But forget about the past. The future looks bright. --] 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	::::It should be noted that Brion has expressed the opinion that the CSS method is <span class="plainlinks"></span> —] 21:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

	== boxes ==

	LOL. -- ] ] 14:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Worst of the best or best of the worst? ==

	*

	] 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	It was a comment made in a particular and light-hearted social situation at the wikimeet. ] 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	:Of course, I'm not trying to make anything more out of it than it was, but it still begs the question: do I truely have such a peculiar status, and how have I achieved it, perhaps even how might I rid myself of it, if I do indeed possess it? Am I more special a case than yourself for example? Both of us are controversial, and yet

	:In any case my interest is sheerly out of curiosity, with no malicious overtones. I certainly did not take it as a personal attack, as tomer was so clearly concerned regarding. Quite the opposite, I see it as a fascinating oportunity to gain some insight into how I am viewed in the comunity, and where my strengths and weaknesses lie.

	:Cheers, ] 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Advocacy and Incoherency==
	What you say is very true. I tried being an informal advocate for a user who had a POV that I felt was under-represented, and it backfired on me. ] 16:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Webcomics RfAr closed ==

	The ] has been closed. ] is admonished to be respectful of consensus in creating and altering Misplaced Pages policy. While boldness in editing is valuable on Misplaced Pages, it is no use to Misplaced Pages to have written policies that create dissent. ], ], ], and ] are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Somehow comment got lost in the jumble that is my talk page. Anyway, my reply is - SPOT ON! Excellent, and totally true. ] 16:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Zordrac ==

	Hi Snowspinner!

	When you blocked Zordrac indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, Kelly Martin's temporary block "overrode" it when it expired. I have reapplied the block (being a bit more lenient than you, assuming that he will want to use this account when the ban expires I set it to 355 days = 365 day ArbCom ban - 10 days already served, rather than indefinite.)

	Also, ] was deleted back in December, and I put it up at DRV in case your interested. ] ] 14:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

	==Wonder if you're up for this==
	* that I put on ]
	* See also on ] which got some favorable comment.

	I would like it to become the norm that good faith listings on ] may be undeleted for the purpose of the discussion, at the discretion of an administrator, provided there are no special circumstances that make undeletion inadvisable (copyright, defamation, inflammatory content, attacks, etc).

	At the moment there's a bit of a kerfuffle about the notice. It's being discussed now on ]. The usual. --]\|] 14:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)



	See also deletion logs:

	*
	*

	--]\|] 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


	==Clerk application approved==
	Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. ] is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. ] 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I find your sarcasm innapropriate. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of ] and ]. -- ] 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
	* Considering your previous history of personal attacks and incivilty directed towards me, perhaps you ought to err on the side of caution. Or, better yet, just leave me alone. -- ] 06:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
	** I did not know you had written the article. Your sarcasm on the AfD is a petty example of incivility. Leave me alone. -- ] 06:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
	***Your sarcasm is rude. It is also belittling. Rudeness = Incivility. Belittling = Incivility. Please, just leave me alone. Your history of personal attacks, incivility and death threats creeps me out. -- ] 07:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

	== ] ==
	Advertisement - Please join the talk on if all articles brought to DRV should be fully restored and open for editing by default. <br/> ]]] 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Admin Request on ] ==

	You have a reputation for being an admin who is willing to do the right thing. Could you please take a look at the talk page for ]? The problem for the past six months has been ]. The ArbCom is now one vote away from a one-year ban (with no opposition to the ban). It appeared that we were about to make progress on the article again, but now EffK is filling the talk page with his rant. Would it be in order to block him for personal attacks? Thank you. ] 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

	::I had not known that you had summarized the evidence. In that case, you can see why I had to request arbitration against him. ] 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Not sure whether this is really your field. A cartoonist. Article deleted after an AfD that was closed as a keep despite quite a few delete votes, on the grounds that it had been improved. I've undeleted and someone has actually been working on improvement, but then Splash protected the article--don't know why. I unprotected. There also seems to be an attempt (so far successful in the case of ]) to prevent articles being listed on AfD while there is an ongoing DRV discussion. That's a little worrying because it could mean that I'd have to do repeated undeletes to get a second AfD on the state-named Avanues (which would almost certainly secure a good keep result). --]\|] 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Admin stuff ==

	Just to clear one thing up - I do not support lynch mobbing or arbitrary deadminning of impopular people. The code of conduct is simply a concise list of already consensual things that admins shouldn't be doing, such as blocking users over a personal dispute, or continuing a revert war on an already-protected page, or wheel warring. Any competent admin can continue doing a good job without needing to do any of that. ]]] 13:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Infinite Crisis Red Links ==

	While I agree that the red links would be helpful for writing articles, but the ] states, "Subsidiary topics that result in redlinks (links that go nowhere), such as the titles of book chapters, the songs on albums and the villages in a municipality, unless you're prepared to promptly turn those links into real ones yourself by writing the articles. It's usually better to resist linking these items until you get around to writing an article on each one." I see no extraordinary reason why Infinite Crisis should not conform to WP policy.--] 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	:I'm so confused. I'm certainly no expert on WP (I've been on about 3 months), but you're an administrator telling me to ignore the MoS? So, does any of it apply, or are just certain sections considered a tangled mess and disregarded by veteran users? This is so weird, why is it not fixed if it's so messed up?--] 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

	== 172 RFA comment ==

	At 172's RFA you wrote ''it is not concievable, regardless of 172's actions now, and, frankly, over the course of the next year or two years, that a longstanding editor with a past arbcom case is ever going to clear RFA''. I present myself as a counterexample . I'm not sure if I'm a terribly useful example, and I didn't answer you on the RFA cos I doubt it would help anyone, but I thought Id comment here. ] 23:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

	== Autobiography ==

	Hello! I was wondering if you were still planning on writing your autobiography, "Lapdog in Lapland"? I'm quite intrigued by the prospect. --] 08:54, 2 February 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 ] and ] and cast a vote by e-mail!

	] 11:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Diffs needed==
	Could you provide about ten diffs that nicely illustrate this proposal: ]. Please add them to the proposal. Thanks, ] 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

	== RFAR on Xed 2 ==

	The ] against ] is closed . Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

	For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 17:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Psychoanalysis ==

	Hi, Phil. I noticed you've been doing mostly sysop work lately, but I would like to request your attention on something related to the WikiProject Critical Theory, where IIRC you were working in psychoanalytic theory.

	In the Spanish wiki, where I'm most active nowadays, we're having some serious issues with a notorious if courteous POV-pusher who's turned the articlo on psychoanalysis into an all-out disqualification of its methods and practices. He claims extensive empirical testing has shown psychoanalysis' sucess rate to be similar to a placebo's, and official disavowal of psychoanalytic theory by the APA.

	Not being an expert on the field, and even less in its current practice in the Ango-Saxon world, I'm at a loss for answers, although I perceive something distinctly fishy. If you have the time and inclination, I'd very much appreciate it if you could point me to relevant literature, or a trustworthy assessment of the ''statu quo''.

	Thanks in advance, and sorry for bothering you. Best, ] ] 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Joking, of course==
	Sorry if it didn't come across that way... dry humor is tricky online. I just thought your phrasing was funny. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
	: :-)
	:-]<sup>(])</sup> 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

	==Ramil/Armenian Genocide-denial-guy==

	I must admit that I am not very au-fait with the Rfc procedure. Could you possible start it and then ask for my comments? Or perhaps it would be a good idea to post on the talk page and ask the other guys to chip in. If you don't feel that you can do it, could you please explain the process to me? ] 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

	So I'm waiting to see how the arbcom will vote on the issue, but I have a couple of questions for you Phil, since you seem a bit more experienced in dealing with them. First, if they vote to accept, what will we be dealing with? Will the issue be proving WP:POINT, sockpuppets and such? (Oh and a note, if you check the history, ] did not identify his sockpuppets on his user page, other users who figured it out did. one of them being me. there was no attempt on his part to make that public knowledge.) If they vote to reject, what do you think an Rfc needs to be based on? I'm so tired of the ranting, just today he did this: and I want to make sure there is something that can be done to stop the insanity. (And the 6 socks). Thanks, ]]] \|<small> ]</small> 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

	:I'd really appreciate your opinions and help on this. User:Cool_cat has now jumped in the fray claiming that the POV tage needs to be there because the Turkish Govern. doens't recognize the genocide. It is starting to get disruptive again and I'm afraid that he will incite an edit war. He has already incitied a flood on comments. I'm not sure what if anything can be done. <small>]]] \| ]</small> 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

	== YMBJ ==

	Please tell me you're joking with your ArbCom barnstar-related statement. Sarcasm is hard to identify online, gotta be sure ;). — ]]]] 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
	:I guess it is, even without context :) Just making sure you weren't ]bed — ]]]] 18:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hello,		Hello,

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] \| ] 11:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	==]==

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	Nice page. I did a slight tighten of it - check the diff. I'm not sure the page would actually work, since the clueful of good will won't have a great need of it, and anyone else wouldn't take it in ;-) - ] 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	==Wikiproject subproject notificatin (late, sorry)==
	Hi Snowsoinner. I'm contacting you because you are a member of ]. This project is inactive but exists. Anyway, I recently created a project ] which by right ought to be subproject ot Sexology and sexuality. In fact, I was (properly) upbraided for creating this project without consulting the members of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. (Sorry, I just plain forgot). Anyway, my questions and comments are:
	*Are you still an active member of ]?
	*Hi! As a member of the (logical) parent project, you are invited to view, contribute to, oversee, and/or join the subproject Wikiproject Pedophilia.
	*Be aware that we have had a ] and are considered by some to be inherently controversial, and may have some future controversies due to the sensitive nature of the material in our purview, although I hope not.
	*In the normal course of things, I would join WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and edit it to include Wikiproject Pedophilia as a subproject. Do you have any objections or comments on that.
	*We are considering renaming ] to Wikiproject Paraphilia, for various reasons. As a member of the parent project, do you have any thoughts on that?] 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

			]
	== Snowspinner ---> Phil Sandifer ==

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	Hello. I was curious as to why you are attempting to change your username. My preferences lie with "Snowspinner". :) -]<sup>]</sup> 19:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->

			== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
	== Templates for Deletion ==

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	I see that you were the admin who created the TfD page last year. I'm hoping that means you can help me figure out how to handle the apparent speedy deletion of ]. I cannot find where this deletion was discussed, and I'm sure I'm not the only user who would like to see if there is a consensus for its removal. Can you offer some guidance?<br>— ] <small>(]) (])  –  February 18, 2006, 06:24 (UTC)</small>
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	So there is no way to bring this up for discussion? The deleting admin marked the edit "T1" which is "divisive." That's certainly a debatable conclusion. Is there a way that a discussion can be had?<br>— ] <small>(]) (])  –  February 18, 2006, 06:33 (UTC)</small>

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	== ] ==

			</div>
	I know on RfP you said you were sprotecting the page, but it seems it's not and it's getting . Drini removed the sprotect template from it and said it wasn't sprotected...can we get sprotection on it for now? Thanks. ] ] ] 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
			</div>

			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
	==Hello me==

	is a thread started by me. ] 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

	=={{User\|Money money money fat fat fat}}==
	Do you know the person in the image? I recall seeing him on[REDACTED] somewhere... ]

	Thats all I got. --<small>]<sup>]\|]</sup></small> 15:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

	:I guess you have taken care of it :) --<small>]<sup>]\|]</sup></small> 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	I have just done a massive refactoring of ], in order to
	*remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
	*make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

	As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, ] ] 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

	== this doesn't help ==

	You're being a bit rude over at ]. Surely it's possible to disagree and still be nice about it? ] ] 17:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

	== Thomasine Church revisions ==

	I have changed ] to a disambiguation page instead of a redirect, because most of the links to it were being redirected to the wrong location. In my disambiguation list, the first bullet is the page where it redirected until I edited it, and the third bullet is the church whose page you are currently hosting at ].

	I was also planning on removing many of the links to this page that are essentially nothing but ads for the miniscule "Thomasine Church" based somewhere around New Jersey. Details are on the ] page.

	Since you have been involved with this page, and are currently hosting an old version of the page, I wanted to run it by you to see if you had any objections. I know they say to "be bold" on Misplaced Pages, but in my experience timidity saves time! ] 07:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

	: I certainly didn't plan to ''redirect'' any pages to your namespace. Are you saying that there should not be any links on the ] page which reference ]? I am removing the current link just in case that's what you meant. ] 01:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

	::The talk page can properly refer, but nothing in the article namespace ought to. ] 02:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Looking for articles to work on? ==

	Hello, Snowspinner. I'm ], a ] that helps new members contribute to Misplaced Pages. You might like to edit these ] based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- ] 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Sequart.com and Julian Darius ==

	I want a second opinion, because I'm leaning towards these looking like vanity, but you're a lot closer to academia than me. ] and ], are they credible? The book looks like a what do you call it, um, not vanity, but a sort of cafe press thing, do you know what I mean? Anyway, I'd appreciate your opinion, I'll probably also ask at ], but I'd appreciate your thoughts first. ] ] 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
	:Hey Phil, sorry not to get back to you sooner. Did you get a chance to look at ]? At the minute I'm thinking redirect ] there. Happy editing! ] ] 19:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Bucky ==

	I was wondering the exact same thing - of course since I would vote him off if I could - I didn't think I could make an NPOV observation about his username. LOL ]<font color="#F0F">]</font> 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: fact? ==

	You'd think that all the other variations would at least be redirects. I guess it's all because we have too many damn cleanup messages: "no reference" bar at the top, "no reference" superscript in the text, "no reference" tag for the talk page, etc. ]]] 22:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

	==]==

	Hi! I'm just curious as to what you mean by "Oppose linking to portals until there is more quality control there - too many are used for POV pushing." The proposed design links to the same portals as the current main page, so I don't understand what distinction you're drawing. —] 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

	:I oppose increasing their prominance. ] 00:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

	::Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification! —] 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Corporate nav templates ==

	Hi Phil,

	Could you please take a look at ]? For the reasons that you deleted ] at ] (guideline violations), I've proposed the rest of the corp nav templates for deletion. However some are now proposing that my tfd be immediately withdrawn given near-unanimous voting to keep. I'm concerned that one template, Template:Microsoft could be deleted, and others kept, despite them being exactly alike. ] 15:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

	== ] sub-pages ==

	You still have subpages under your old username: . I don't know if they're worth moving into the Phil Sandifer subspace, but it's something to consider. ] (]) 19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	:In that same vein, I was tempted to use eminent domain to take ] for use by the arbcom ;)
	:But then I realized, for our purposes of trying to inform people of how to present effective arbitration cases, it's probably better off if you're the only one allowed to edit it. ] 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
	::Fair enough - feel free to reference it at will though. ] 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

	:::While we're on the subject, can Phil please explain to me the reason for giving up the perfectly good name of ''Snowspinner''...? I'm quite utterly baffled. -]<sup>]</sup> 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

	== E-mail ==

	E-mail for you, Phil. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

	==Everyking==
	Phil, I'd prefer that you not be the one to point out Everyking's parole violations. I feel it's a bit problematic for you to be the one doing this, given that you are restricted from enforcement. It is my interpretation, though the others may not back me up, that this was intended to prevent you going out and looking for things to catch him on, and others had already been paying atention to him. ] ] 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

	==Who are you?==

	Hi, I don't mean to be rude, but who are you and why did you leave a message on my IP page? Perhaps it is an old message, as I had not even heard of[REDACTED] in Jan of last year, yet somehow something pops up when I browse saying that there is 1 message for me, from you. "Please do not vandalize Misplaced Pages. ]". I am not aware of any vandalization from myself, unless I left a typo or summat. Thank you ] 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

	* Oh wow, I didn't know IP addresses worked like that :O I should do a wiki search on the subject, haha! Thanks for clearing it up, I didn't really understand, I do try and do my best here and also try to "be bold", for the good of wiki. (I don't always log in because it sometimes seems like a hassle, having to log in evertime, I am JayKeaton otherwise). Ta ] 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

	==Amazing Fantasies of Phil at Wooster!==
	I can't stop typing in exclamation points! News of you coming up here is just BANG! POW! WOW! ]] 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Jimbo Wales at UF -- next week ==

	Hi Phil. Laurie has probably mentioned this to you, but I wanted to <strike>bug you again</strike> let you know about an event going on at UF next week: ], founder of Misplaced Pages, is coming to speak!

	The speech is on '''Wednesday, April 12 at 7 pm''' at (). The speech is free and open to the public.

	Jimbo's keynote will be on the role of free culture in universities. The keynote will be followed by a discussion panel of UF students and faculty. It's sponsored by , , and the .

	For more information, visit or ]. Hope to see you here!

	(P.S. Because not everyone checks their userpage regularly, I'll also email you this note if your account is set up to allow e-mails from other users.) --] 05:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC) ''(aka )'''

	== I could use some help, not sure if you want to help ==

	May I ask if you could look over at the ] talk page you were involved with a couple of weeks ago and look at the new edit war that appears to be developing under the "Hyperbaric section". An unsigned editer is inserting inappropriate and unsubstantiated information that is ruining the article. I'm not experienced enough to know the exact method for resolving this, but I can see when a issue is over the edge as this one is! I'd appreciate your involvment with this guy, thanks in advance ] 06:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Cognition's user page ==

	Thanks, Phil. You're right that LaRouche 1 applies better here than LaRouche 2. If you want to go ahead and restore some or all of the user page, I won't object. I don't really care about user pages, but on the other hand, they get cached by Google and this one makes us look silly. My main concern is that Cognition should realize this is an encyclopedia, but the chances of that happening are close to zero anyway. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Your Re: to my email on enwiki-l ==

	You said: "It is not your responsibility to avoid having shitty things said
	about you on a major website."

	I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'm a bit confused. Care to elaborate? --<font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

	==User making bizarre personal threats==
	I'm taking this matter to you, as you're the person who has the most experience dealing with these matters out of anyone I know. That threat is pretty bizarre and it makes me feel uncomfortable, despite the fact I'm not even the recipient of the threat. I think a ban is in order. Regards. ] \| ] 01:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	:Never mind. The matter has been taken care of. Best regards. ] \| ] 03:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	::I certainly do not support personal threats on or off of Misplaced Pages, but the Adam Carr request for banning of user Sgrayban has very suspicious timing because it occurs just after Sgrayban initiated a rfc on Adam Carr. ] 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
	:::Adam Carr did not make the request. I did. Let's take this matter elsewhere so that we don't waste Phil's time. ] \| ] 18:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	== A little bit of Misplaced Pages history ==

	Hello there! I'm interested in Misplaced Pages history... and I like to uncover old happenings in the past. For instance, I've encountered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Wik Do you remember by any chance what ArbCom ruling was that & in which way was this a side effect? Thanks a lot! --]\|] 16:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Attempts to clean up Reliable Sources guidelines ==

	Phil, I have started a dialogue to revise the Reliable Sources guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Problems_with_Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources_guidelines
	Please feel free to add your comments. It seems that ] has taken a vested interest in this guideline and is opposed to any changes.
	Your input would be valuable. --] 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

	== Reliable sources ==

	Phil,

	I notice that you reverted the text on the guideline page from
	:''Any scientific journal that insists on being taken seriously is peer-reviewed''
	to
	:''The best scientific journals are peer-reviewed''

	Are there any serious scientific journals that are ''not'' peer-reviewed? I'm not aware of any, certainly not within my speciality (chemistry) or the hard sciences in general. This is a serious question, maybe in the humanities people are doing differently and publications in journals are passed just by the editor.

	Also, you reverted
	:''Determining the scientific consensus ... can also be accomplished by following what is accepted the state of knowledge in review articles.''
	to
	:''Determining the scientific consensus ... by following the state of discussions in respected journals''

	This an important difference. Someone going to the library and reviewing the literature on his own is dangerously close to doing original research on his own on what the scientific consensus is at the moment. On the other hand, someone citing a review cites something that has been run past two reviewers and the editorial board of the review journal in question. ] 03:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

	<s> == regarding something recently written in wikipedia:consensus ==
	Hi there. I have a question : I was wonder who and why this was written putting the word "I" into an article. I have not seen that doen before. I was going to ask you whether you perhaps meant instead to put it into the[REDACTED] consensus talk-page instead. But first I should perhaps ask if it was indeed you who wrote it.

	<s>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AConsensus&diff=50796367&oldid=50670311

	<s>"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing..." ] 10:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	I misread. sorry.] 10:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)</s>

	== Imitation:Flattery ==

	] --> ] You may care to inspect and contribute/corect/simplify? ] 23:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Threats ==

	Phil, lay off the insults and the bullying. It isn't vandalism to delete tags slapped on with no discussion, and you ''know'' it. Stop calling excellent editors POV-pushers. ] 04:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	:Nope - you talk first, you don't tag first. Just because newbies do it all the time doesn't make it ok for you to do so. Your vendetta against Ryan et al. is really unbecoming. Slapping tags onto article just because they offend your political POV was unacceptable when you did it several months ago, and it's unacceptable now. Threatening to block people when you are in the wrong, just because you have a good chance of getting away with it...is unacceptable bullying. Grow up Phil. ] 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	::Moreover, since your addition of the tag was, in essence, a revert to one of your own prior edits, a case could be made that you are violating 3RR in almost every case. I suggest you relax and leave the tags off - maybe have a nice cup of tea and come back ready to discuss substantive issues. -- ] ] 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	:::AGF? That's supposed to ba a parody of people using AGF after they have done somethign wrong, right? Now you are gleefully violating the 3RR on top of your threats? What rubbish. ] 04:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::::Can someone tell me what is going on here? Who is out to get who? Maybe I can try to sort this out, if not, then take it to WP:AN/I.''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 04:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	::::Phil's been slandering Ryan for ''months''. Nothing new about that. ] 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Do you have any quick diffs for that?''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 05:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	----
	(copyed from user Voice of All's talk)
	:To answer your question on Phil Sandifer's tlak page - Phil is reintroducing the 'NPOV' and 'merge' tags to a whole collection of articles that he views as 'blogosphere' rants. The articles have benefitted greatly from multiple editors with multiple POV's, and Phil's insistence on blanket tagging is, in my view, a violation of WP:POINT. He has also repeatedly accused me (in edit summaries and on 'talk') of vandalism in my reverts. He has since violated 3RR. -- ] ] 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::When I log on tommorow, I will check to see what explanation he puts up. If there are none, I will revert all the tags. If he reverts, then I'll report it on WP:AN/I. If there is more long term history, then an RfC may be in line, but lets try to avoid that.''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	== NOTICE: revert warring ==

	:I have protected ]. No one should revert to any of the relavent versions of the protected pages (related the templates, ect...on RfPP). Treat them as protected pages in that regard.''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 04:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
	::See Ryan's talk page -- you are going to have to explain those tags as normal, or I will have to remove some of them, as I normally would in this case, per policy (there must be an actual dispute with ongoing talk).''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 05:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Tags ==

	Humm, I can not edit protected pages.... ] 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	== User notice: temporary 3RR block ==

	====Regarding reversions made on ] ] (]) to ]==== ]You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. <!-- Template:3RR3 --> The duration of the is 8 hours. ] 12:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

	==You've violated 3RR on the 2004 irregularities article==
	Please stop tagging the article with the NPOV and reverting other editors' restorations, and I will take it on good faith and not report this violation. -- ] ] 15:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

	==As the above clearly indicates, I've already been entertaining dialogue==

	Please don't consciously mischaracterize my behavior again. It's disrespectful and disinformative. -- ] ] 05:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

	:You express bad faith by consistently returning the article tag without substantiating it with specifics, or making an effort to edit the article yourself, and you call my reversion the act of bad faith. When you refuse to participate in the process, and claim it's broken, in this situation it is your conduct that is clearly indefensible. I'm comfortable with mine, but remain open to valid examples, and of course I'm responsive to '''actual edits'''. -- ] ] 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

	== Arbcom case ==

	Since you are involved in a possible case that I do know something about, feel free to contanct me if you need me to give any relevant information. Thanks.''']'''<sup>]\|]\|]</font></sup> 00:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

	=== Ryan recruiting comments ===
	Here . Thought you should be aware.--] 00:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	:He's aware. Guettarda responded to Phil's original Wiki-en post and has been involved with the issue. As he's 'away', I thought a notiification appropriate. Good day to both of you. -- ] ] 00:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
	::Yep, I had noticed. Busy trying to get grades in before I leave, otherwise I'd have commented. Cheers! ] 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

	== You are right ==

	You are right, it was inappropriate. People do inappropriate things sometimes. — ] ] 17:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hello,

	An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

	On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --] 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

	==]==
	You might a winner of a fabulous stub. ] 10:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	I just saw the news at Boing Boing and came here to tell you that, you know, what's happening sucks and all but hey maybe you'd get an article on yourself out of it. Then I get to your stub and people say you can't cite BoingBoing. Life is funny.

	I'm thinking the College Of Wooster will have something in their newspaper about you in the fall, but they only host articles on the web for one week. There are physical archives, though, as you know in Spec Coll. But I wonder if this is the kind of notoriety you hoped for? Life is funny. Wait, I said that already.

	Anyway Phil, I wish you the best and know you'll beat this thing (what was mentioned on Boing Boing, not necessarily the struggles of early stubhood). It's stupid and preposterous and they can't do that to superheroes! ]] 12:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

	Hi, sympathies on your case which sounds bloody absurd. As for your eponymous article, do you want it deleted or do you want it to remain? I can't determine whether its been put up as a form of harassment. ] 18:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

	== You ==

	I just wanted to let you know that, whilst our Wikipedic selves have not often gotten along so well as they might, my closure of the AfD on your real(ish) self is in no way related to that. But ''someone'' had to close the AfD, and there are not many admins left standing after that debate! No need to reply, unless you particularly want to. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

	== FA ==

	If I'm not mistaken you nomintated Louis Armstrong for FA. Do you know which date it appeared or where I can find that info? Just curious. Thanks. --] 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

	== RfM ==

	I have requested mediation w/you: ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

	{{RFM-Request\|2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities\|Phil Sandifer, et al.}}


	== Neil Gaiman ==
	Please point me to where Gaiman said that DC does not need to contact him about the use of the characters he created. Thanks. --] 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Re: ==

	I try not to let emotions affect my edits. --] 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

	== Hivemind ==

	Hi Phil, can you tell me why you removed the Hivemind link?

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	As background, I originally followed Misplaced Pages's main article links through 'WP critics' to Brandt's article. Then I read there about his Hivemind page. At the time I was able to follow that link and see that page for myself (I tend to look at things with my own eyes to reach my own judgments). Not long afterwards I noticed the WR site was re-organized so that Hivemind was not available directly from the home page (that I could easily find). I realized that it could still be reached through the direct Hivemind link, and inserted that in the article with an Edit note explaining the reason. Now I noticed you removed that link. It seems to me that another hypothetical inquisitive person, wanting to learn for him/herself about the Hivemind page (which is mentioned in the article) would have a hard time finding it.
			]
	That WR is a site dedicated to destroying WP is not in much doubt. But do we want to prevent people from learning about our adversaries? Thanks, ] 01:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the redirect ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29#WP:DICK}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:19, 29 November 2024

Largely inactive on this project, but, you know, leave a message if you want.

Requesting inputs

@El Sandifer , Requesting your inputs @ WT:CYCLING#Cycling news Reliable source? if yes, Which would be right article?, if the topic interests you. Thanks.

I came across your user profile from your Jan-23 edit to WT:CYCLING‎ since I tried to search active editors engaging on project talk page .

Bookku (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Catholic Church

Catholic Church has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

nothing to do with[REDACTED] but i love the thoughtfulness and granularity of your doctor who writing - like, it's a small thing, but it takes remarkable dedication to do something like "only name blog posts after fragments of quotes from any doctor but the subject of the post" consistently across a decade. (and your 'the god complex' post fundamentally changed how i thought about the episode!) Locust Valley (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! El Sandifer (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tron Ares

The film's infobox highlights they are being credited as Nine Inch Nails. Simply articulating the band members in the Music section is not misleading or tricking people into thinking they're being credited as Reznor/Ross. Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you around once more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC).

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"WP:DICK" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:DICK to the redirect Misplaced Pages:Don't be a dick has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29 § WP:DICK until a consensus is reached. 67.209.128.120 (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)