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)
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)
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)
<-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Wikipedia's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!- Wikidemon ( talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
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, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If another instance of stalking happens by the editor you mentioned just let me know.-- MONGO 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
{{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 editing now? Malke 2010 ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
-- post removed --
You have been unblocked as you have accepted by email the following:
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your appeal. We are willing to offer to unblock your account, with the understanding that any existing sanctions on the account, including the topic ban from the Tea Party Movement case, would remain in effect. Additionally, as a condition of unblock, you would be restricted to using only the Phoenix and Winslow account. This would mean to refrain from renaming that account or creating any others except with the express advance permission of the Arbitration Committee, as well as to refrain from anonymous editing. The single-account restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date of unblock, and no less than one year after the most recent unsuccessful appeal thereafter.
On behalf of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,
Dougweller ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back Phoenix! There are plenty of articles that you can work on tbat will distance you from tea party movement stuff....let me know if there is anything I can help you with.-- MONGO 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Militarization of police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarface. 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) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps ( talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a bit concerned about edits like this and this. The first worsens the article and breaks the long-established consensus, and the second uses a false claim of BLP violation to blank a longstanding FAQ. The first is just a poor edit, and I've undone it. The second is more worrying. If I saw you do anything like that again I'd probably block you then post the block for review by my peers. Given your block log, it would be an indefinite block. Please be more careful. -- John ( talk) 12:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit Wikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. The blocking admin, John, has a quotation from prominent American socialist Eugene V. Debs on his homepage, signalling his left-wing sympathies. I am participating in a WP:RFC on the article about Waterboarding and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have little knowledge of, and no real interest in, the subject matter. But I endorse the block based on your apparent rejection of RS and consensus - and your attack on the blocking admin is misplaced. When you openly reject sources simply because they disagree with your own political views, you confirm your POV editing, and I suggest you would need to address your approach to POV editing if you want a future unblock request to be successful. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
P&W, I'm not willing to let your false statement there go unchallenged. I did not block you on the basis of "Just block anybody who disagrees with you." I blocked you because after a warning you continued to mischaracterise this attempt you are making to change the consensus as a BLP matter. It isn't, and nobody thinks it is. Disagreement is normal, but dishonesty, particularly on an important matter like BLP, is not. If you want to get unblocked, you should read WP:GAB and WP:NOTTHEM first. -- John ( talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit Wikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. "As ever, I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it." [2] Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the discussion above where you are arguing your views on content using anything but sources, the lesson is clearly not learned. Honestly, I can't imagine you being unblocked without agreeing to an indefinite topic ban from anything related to US politics. Max Semenik ( talk) 07:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to reviewing admin This block, as noted above, is under discussion at WP:AN. -- John ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest a thorough reading of WP:BLP and WP:BOLDat 17:47 to
I've already accepted and acknowledged that what I did was wrongat 20:02! I will unblock you if you accept a topic ban from US politics. I agree with those at the central discussion who said your contributions in the last years have been unhelpful. Is there another area which interests you? Typically, those who can demonstrate good editing behaviour for six months or a year under a topic ban can apply to have it lifted. There are five million articles to edit, only a few thousand of which are on US politics. Are you still interested in
...military history, Major League Baseball, NFL football, '70s muscle cars, electrical engineering and video games? Because any of those areas would be a positive contribution. Right now, I do not think US politics and you are a good combination. Once again, I don't think you should be in a hurry to be unblocked, and offering to avoid the mainspace isn't that helpful, as many of your disruptive comments and misunderstandings about BLP were not made in mainspace, e.g. [7], and up to yesterday at 17:47. Take a few more days to think about your future here, whether you have really absorbed what you did wrong, and how you feel you can contribute positively here, please. -- John ( talk) 21:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
<-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Wikipedia's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!- Wikidemon ( talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
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, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If another instance of stalking happens by the editor you mentioned just let me know.-- MONGO 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
{{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 editing now? Malke 2010 ( talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
-- post removed --
You have been unblocked as you have accepted by email the following:
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your appeal. We are willing to offer to unblock your account, with the understanding that any existing sanctions on the account, including the topic ban from the Tea Party Movement case, would remain in effect. Additionally, as a condition of unblock, you would be restricted to using only the Phoenix and Winslow account. This would mean to refrain from renaming that account or creating any others except with the express advance permission of the Arbitration Committee, as well as to refrain from anonymous editing. The single-account restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date of unblock, and no less than one year after the most recent unsuccessful appeal thereafter.
On behalf of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,
Dougweller ( talk) 10:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back Phoenix! There are plenty of articles that you can work on tbat will distance you from tea party movement stuff....let me know if there is anything I can help you with.-- MONGO 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Militarization of police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarface. 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) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps ( talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a bit concerned about edits like this and this. The first worsens the article and breaks the long-established consensus, and the second uses a false claim of BLP violation to blank a longstanding FAQ. The first is just a poor edit, and I've undone it. The second is more worrying. If I saw you do anything like that again I'd probably block you then post the block for review by my peers. Given your block log, it would be an indefinite block. Please be more careful. -- John ( talk) 12:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit Wikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. For several years I have been complaining about a left-wing bias here at Wikipedia. The blocking admin, John, has a quotation from prominent American socialist Eugene V. Debs on his homepage, signalling his left-wing sympathies. I am participating in a WP:RFC on the article about Waterboarding and he is on the opposite side of the debate. In fact, he posted the first "Yes" vote and phrased it as, "Of course." He is involved as an editor, and therefore should not be blocking other editors he disagrees with. He should have asked a neutral administrator to review and if necessary, take action. In my opinion, this action is the very embodiment of the left-wing bias I've been complaining about for years. Just block anybody who disagrees with you. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have little knowledge of, and no real interest in, the subject matter. But I endorse the block based on your apparent rejection of RS and consensus - and your attack on the blocking admin is misplaced. When you openly reject sources simply because they disagree with your own political views, you confirm your POV editing, and I suggest you would need to address your approach to POV editing if you want a future unblock request to be successful. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
P&W, I'm not willing to let your false statement there go unchallenged. I did not block you on the basis of "Just block anybody who disagrees with you." I blocked you because after a warning you continued to mischaracterise this attempt you are making to change the consensus as a BLP matter. It isn't, and nobody thinks it is. Disagreement is normal, but dishonesty, particularly on an important matter like BLP, is not. If you want to get unblocked, you should read WP:GAB and WP:NOTTHEM first. -- John ( talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Phoenix and Winslow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I understand that what I have done is wrong. I promise that I will not edit Wikipedia mainspace on any article dealing with waterboarding, without first seeking consensus on the article Talk page. "As ever, I would have no objection to an unblock if the user is able to indicate their understanding of their mistake and undertake not to repeat it." [2] Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at the discussion above where you are arguing your views on content using anything but sources, the lesson is clearly not learned. Honestly, I can't imagine you being unblocked without agreeing to an indefinite topic ban from anything related to US politics. Max Semenik ( talk) 07:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to reviewing admin This block, as noted above, is under discussion at WP:AN. -- John ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest a thorough reading of WP:BLP and WP:BOLDat 17:47 to
I've already accepted and acknowledged that what I did was wrongat 20:02! I will unblock you if you accept a topic ban from US politics. I agree with those at the central discussion who said your contributions in the last years have been unhelpful. Is there another area which interests you? Typically, those who can demonstrate good editing behaviour for six months or a year under a topic ban can apply to have it lifted. There are five million articles to edit, only a few thousand of which are on US politics. Are you still interested in
...military history, Major League Baseball, NFL football, '70s muscle cars, electrical engineering and video games? Because any of those areas would be a positive contribution. Right now, I do not think US politics and you are a good combination. Once again, I don't think you should be in a hurry to be unblocked, and offering to avoid the mainspace isn't that helpful, as many of your disruptive comments and misunderstandings about BLP were not made in mainspace, e.g. [7], and up to yesterday at 17:47. Take a few more days to think about your future here, whether you have really absorbed what you did wrong, and how you feel you can contribute positively here, please. -- John ( talk) 21:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John ( talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)