This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi.

According to the map you edited last, Palestine is part of Israel. You are welcome to dicuss this here. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont remember Palestine ever gaining independence from Israel. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "gaining independence from Israel"? West Bank and Gaza Strip, which according to you is part of Israel, do not need "gain" independence from Israel because Israel has no right to those territories.

Since you insist that West Bank and Gaza Strip, I will take this issue to an admin. Cya! -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 13:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have much bigger things to worry about, you enjoy your little crusade, I could care less about the outcome, an older version of the map, my version featured Palestine, Spesh531 changed it to include all Israels territories, look at the history! Now I also know for a fact the State of Palestine is not recognized by the United States or the United Nations, the Jews have already been forced to give up so much, but people like you will not be satisfied until the Israelis are pushed into the sea, there cities Islamified, there legacy damned and forgotten. I support Israel and its territorial ambitions, but will respect your decision to hate, and support a people to whom life means little, women second class citizens, and want to bring an end to the free western world. I say no more, have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Arizona-guy/girl. See my answer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IRISZOOM. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that your version did not include West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel, however you have insisted that Palestine should be part of Israel by answering my comment with the following text "I dont remember Palestine ever gaining independence from Israel". No matter what you write, West Bank and Gaza is not a part of Israel. Not even Israel claims this.

Your part about "crusade", "pushed into the sea", "Islamified", "hate" etc is just pure guessings about my positions. I hope you learn to not engage in irrelevant conclusions in the future. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We each have our own opinions, I have now updated the map to include Palestine as a separate country, please leave me alone. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Great that you changed it. Yes, I will "leave" you "alone". -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Cyprus Israel Locator.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Greece Iraq Locator.png. However, the file description needs source information before it's okay to use on Wikipedia.

Please click here and do the following:

1. Add a detailed description of who the original author is and where you got it. Please be specific, and include a link to the source if you can.
2. Be sure to save the page.

If you follow these steps, your image can help enhance Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the media copyright questions page.

Thank you for your contribution! -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Greece Lebanon Locator.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to answer questions on a good article review of that article? AIRcorn  (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Now knowing what I know of the nominator, I change my vote to neutral, regardless in the fact he has positively contributed a great deal to this article, he has vandalized other pages, and chose a most profane user name, hidden in a different language, and is also a sock of a banned user. Any other questions I will be happy to answer. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Would you have any qualms about me undoing the nomination? The user was not entitled to edit here so it is in effect an invalid nomination, not to mention the fact that an indefinitely blocked user is unable to respond to the reviewers comments. If you think it might still be a good article, and are willing, you can re-nominator the article yourself without any dramas. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Yes, That is perfectly fine, I no longer have any respect for that user nor his work, after I see the vandalism he has done on his old account, and IP's, revove the nomination, do not renominate right now, I'll wait a while before future renomination, but good idea. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a minor error with two of the time zones on File:Worldwide Time Zones (including DST).png. The Falkland Islands use -(04) -03, [1] and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are on -02yr. [2]

Could you correct the map? Thanks! -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 09:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the Falklands are currently trialling all year DST. [3] -- Philip Stevens ( talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed now, Thank You, Please feel free to notify me of any other mistakes you find on any of my maps, and I will be happy to fix them. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Phoenix B 1of3, I just wanted to let you know that an AfD, in which you participated in recently has been reopened. Please express your opinion again in the current AfD. Thank you. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Current Year. Since you had some involvement with the Current Year redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Present Year. Since you had some involvement with the Present Year redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect This Year. Since you had some involvement with the This Year redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Could you please update this map ? South Sudan must be in red. Thanks . Mightymights ( talk) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, I also updated Kosovo to show non-majority. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ! :) Mightymights ( talk) 11:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome, sometimes I make mistakes, but I am almost always happy to correct them, feel free to alert me on any other mistakes I have made on any other maps. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix B 1of3, I've temporarily blocked you for mass page creation without approval. Per Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation, the community has decided that any large-scale automated or semi-automated article creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. You're also encouraged (and sometimes required) to find a consensus for this mass page creation at the Village Pump and other venues. I can't see any evidence that such a consensus has been obtained; in addition, the number of warnings above concerns me. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I urge you to discuss any tasks such as this with others before executing them again. Thank you, — madman 01:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have taken some time to think this all through, and read the rules it is time for me to explain my actions and why they are all in good faith, and useful to the community. I need you to read this carefully in order for you to understand what I was trying to do, why I feel it needs should be kept, and that now that I am aware of the rules I will not make the same mistake again. I carry no resentment for the short block, and I make only a plea for approval of what has been created, I will make no more, I just wanted to help.

First I must say I had no intention to cause harm, what I have created is a series of redirects, I have created them without the help of Auto Wiki Browser of which I was never granted, each page was created manually but swiftly, each redirect is intended to be logical, there are no articles for, and should never be articles for specific years in the 3rd and 4th millennium BC, but instead there absence has formed is a vacuum of unmonitored space, I ran into a few scattered already created pages on my long an tedious journey that pointed to incorrect locations and fixed them one by one. To simplify what I have done I give you an example of what it was I did, I took 2468 BC and redirected it to the 25th century BC, 3621 BC to the 37th century BC, 2956 BC to 30th century BC and so on. I admit a great many of pages were created, but they followed exactly in the footsteps of what has been done with non page-worthy years after that period, 637 BC logically redirects to 630s BC as the year is not worthy of an article, but the decade has one, we have no decade articles before 1690s BC or after 2190s but sure enough as logic dictates 2486 redirects to 25th century, 2301 to 24th century, 4004 BC has long since redirected to the 5th millennium BC, and I set out to fill in those gaps, I set out to become a better and more contributive wikipedian, but I have failed again as I always have and always will, I will stay just long enough to plead for the preservation of what I have created so far, my redirects have an intended purpose and though far and few between they will make accessing years articles of ancient times an easier step, and prevent unnessisary confusion, I will create no more, I just want to protect what is done, and then I will step down out of the spotlight on this website, become a minor editor again and stop grabbing for recognition I will never receive, I love Wikipedia, I broke many rules in the past, I was a stupid fool, but I've been trying to make up for it, but I just cant, again several solid hours dedicated to helping the site leads to turmoil.

How Can I save all this work from deletion? How can I prove this was and is with good cause and purpose? How can I prove that behind my history of mistakes there is a person determined to help this site? How can I prove I'm not some vandalistic teenager hellbent on destruction? How can I prove I'm not a troll, and those countless edits were made in the name of aiding quicker access to this human knowledge websites many pages? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix, I certainly don't think it follows that you're failing or will fail to become a constructive Wikipedian. I think the numerous warnings on your talk page indicate you're unfamiliar with many of Wikipedia's policies, and you may want to correct that. A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Five pillars for the principles that underlie all the policies, then Wikipedia:List of policies. I recognize that you're not going to learn all of them in a day, or even a month. I've been here for almost five years and I still need clarification on some of the details. But you'll never go wrong if before doing something big you check to see whether there might be any relevant guidelines or policies and whether you have consensus. A quick post at the help desk or one of the village pumps will do: just a quick "hey, I'm about to do something really big; is it a good idea?"

As for this particular task, I didn't expect you to be fully familiar with the bot policy and wasn't attempting to judge what you were doing; I just wanted you to slow down for a minute so I could point the policy out to you and we could determine whether what you were doing was really necessary. That's why the block was so short, and it's been lifted by now. If you want to keep on with the redirects, one thing you could do is post at Wikipedia:Bot requests and see if someone wants to run it as an automated task for you; for one, that'll save a lot of time on your part, and it opens it up for discussion. Feel free to drop me a note on my User talk page if you have any further questions. Thanks! — madman 04:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You, I feel better now, I guess I just hadn't realized how controversial 1000+ redirects in a few days would be, I could blame it all on my having too much time on my hands, I recently lost a loved one in the real world, and scheduled off work for a few days to mourn, but I became really bored and an idea popped into my mind that this would be so helpful to the website, I will wait another day or two and then I will request for concencus to finish the last fourty or so that would complete the scheme to 4000 BC where the line will be drawn, as prehistory did not use years, centuries or calendars of any type we can know of. I thank you for being patient with me, I'm a slow learner sometimes, but with hope restored again I will look forward to editing beside you again, but this time I wont make the same mistake, I thank you for this valuable knowledge that might possibly have saved me from falling into greater trouble in the near future. I can not express my gratitude enough for the moment, I feel great joy and relief that my fear of having to be exiled from my favorite website for my mistakes Ive made and continue to make, is but a paranoid non-reality for the moment, my life doesn't consist of much these days, I work part time at a library and love it, but I am only granted 19.5 hours a week, I cant drive, I have one semester left in High School, with only one class to complete, other than that I have no social life, I sleep 10+ hours a night, and I spend my waking hours on the internet playing games, overdoing my homework, write essays for personal use, working on chapter 3 of a novel the world may never see, and most of all I enjoy being a member of Wikipedia, I fills the void in my life, where my mom can no longer be there for me, this website is, I prefer Wikipedia over facebook because it allows me share information, things of meaning, rather than just "where are you, your late?" or "What do you think of johns new Haircut." or all that other rather silly stuff, I like cold hard facts, opinions are just fine in small doses, Thats what Wikipedia is, and is not just a friendship of editors but rather a global force for Free speech, and unhindered access to knowledge, It makes me feel a part of something bigger than myself. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall sign off now as it is after 10:20, my medication is taking effect, I will see you all shortly, Once Again Thank You madman, you have restored my confidence in this website once again, and I will pick out a nice barnstar for you in the morning, carry on keeping this website clean and in order must be a busy task. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think the mass creation of year redirects is helpful. For example, why should we redirect someone looking for 3963 BC to the 40th century BC when the target article contains no relevant information at all? Huon ( talk) 22:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Huon, I'm not creating any more of these from this point forward, I did it not only because it looks more complete with them, but also in the event of, though unlikely, someone somewhere say finds an new archeological event that dates exactly to 3621 BC published an article in National Geographic or New York times the redirect prevents some new wikipedian from creating an article such as "In 3621 BC the pottery culture of .... is said to have suffered an extreme drought that caused them to wage war on .....". Its unlikely but not unreasonable, I found a few that were like that at one time and had been redirected months or years before me to the century of which they are or would be contained in, for example here. All is in good faith, you could search through my entire history in these last several months and you'll see that all I am doing is trying to help. In my defense I have not violated any of the rules on redirects (see below). All are logical, they do not cause confusion but rather ease confusion, not even number ten is violated as Wikiproject:Years has no intention of turning individual years articles prior to 499 BC into individual articles. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. ^{example needed}
2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". ( Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. ( Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. ( Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. " MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.

– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I don't think these redirects are harmful, or that, once created, they need to be deleted. On the other hand, I don't see which of the purposes for redirects at listed at WP:REDIRECT they satisfy. "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article" comes closest, but even that's a stretch. The article creation argument actually seems more of an argument against creating the redirect: Firstly, once a redirect is created anybody, including IP editors, can expand it into the type of bad articles you mention, while creating a new article requires an account and a minimum of experience. Secondly, while new page patrol usually has an excessive backlog, I believe it's still more likely to catch the bad articles we want to avoid than recent changes patrol. Unless you watchlist the redirects you create, changes to them might go unnoticed. Huon ( talk) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I can do that, I can add them to my watchlist and will add them, as you can see This spare copy of my watchlist, you will see I am watching quite many more articles than I have contributed to, I will add them shortly to my raw watchlist, I feel need to protect my work, and I will watch out, I usually check two or three times a day and sometimes more, I wont let you down. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now added all of these to my watchlist and will keep on the look out, I will also try and check more often when possible. note: not all were created by me. If you have any further advise please feel free to let me know :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an eye out. I don't think vandalism of these redirects is likely at all, and personally I don't watch most of the redirects I create via Redirects for creation; I thus don't think looking at your watchlist more often is necessary (though of course it can't hurt either; I just don't want you to feel pressured). Huon ( talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Its really no trouble at all, things dont show up on the list until a change occurs, so until they happen it will be like there not even on my watchlist at all, and if and when that change happens I will be prepared to combat it unless someone else catches it before I can. :) – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)