Phenz

Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll

Phenz, I've reverted your vote from the Userbox policy poll - the poll closed at 23:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC). Feel free to make your thoughts known on the talk page. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Room 213

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room 21three if you still have an opinion on this article. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In Flames

I didn't add nonsense, I was reverting blatant vandalism. Maybe you could do something to stop the vandals of thr In Flames page.

Le Conte

Hello again! I wrote this on the discussion page also but in case you missed that, I think the merger went fine. I'm not sure what the official name of the mountain is, though I do think LeConte looks better and is more common. I just went ahead and tinkered a little bit with the page, mostly just adding the metric equivalencies to the height totals. I didn't really know much about the geology, so I definitely appreciate what you've added there, and my only concern is that the current page doesn't mention anything about Jack Huff, who is pretty influencial in the development of the lodge and the mountain as a destination for hikers. I will try to find out exactly what he is responsible for and add him to the page sometime in the future. In addition to Alum Cave, I also plan to write the pages for the other four trails soon. I don't have any photos of them but I will make sure to get some when I'm in the area again. Anyway though, I appreciate what you are doing so far as pages in the region, which are really lacking and look forward to seeing your work on other landmarks in the region. Blinutne 04:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

209.18.49.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now been blocked for 31 hours (that may be extended). Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM???

How and when did I vandalize a page? I think you've got the wrong person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.134.165 (talk • contribs)

You vandalized by blanking the page and replacing it with this edit. --Phenz 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And now, the RfA department

A newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 10:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)]]

Signing

Please sign your entries with ~~~~ to avoid confusion, especially here Nashville Monkey 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh sorry about that one. Silly mistake;) --phenz^Talk 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar for Your Great Efforts!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award you this barnstar for your many vandalism reverts. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for my first barnstar! That made my night:) --phenz^Talk 06:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful

See this diff. Thanks. KOS | talk 18:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh sorry about that... I lagged and didn't notice right away.... Silly mistake. I was just trying to get that vandalism gone fast. I'll be more careful.... --phenz^Talk 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No worry, it can happen. Keep up the good work! You can reply here, I'll keep watch on your page. KOS | talk 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey!!

You're my hero.First Echelon 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Backpacking

Hello,

As part of the Trails WikiProject, You may be interested in the newly formed WikiProject Backpacking, an effort to increase the quality of Backpacking related articles and media on Wikipedia. I hope that we may work together with other closely related WikiProjects to make camping and packing articles the best they can be!

Regards,

-Leif902 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page today :) --phenz^Talk 20:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure :) Pan Dan 20:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And why do you think you get vandalised, son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.93.239 (talk • contribs)

Because I'm a recent changes patroller;) --phenz^Talk 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism

sorry i am new—Preceding unsigned comment added by Looserates (talk • contribs)

my user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism from my user page, just noticed it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

anytime --phenz^Talk 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I Need Clear Up Some Recent Actions

Phenz,

Let me start off by saying that I am contacting you because you seem to be an administrator or someone of importance on the website, at the very least you seem like someone who could direct me in the right direction if I'm mistaken about your position. Before I go into the matter that is of most importance to me let me address the reason you contacted me, my editing without being logged in. Immediately let me say it was a mistake, please excuse me!

I have been a member, user, part time editor (which ever) of Wikipedia for roughly a year, if I have done some edits recently without logging in please excuse me, I had no intention of hiding anything let alone my intentions. If that has occurred in the past it was most likely that I came across a mistake on an article I was reading, proceeded to correct it and didn't realize I was not logged in because the edit took without alerting me that I was not logged in, please excuse my mistake. I am not a professional writer or a published author, nor have I ever claimed to be, but I'm an aspiring organized crime writer and screenwriter who has is presently working on a book and has 3 rough drafts for screenplays. In regards to my activities on Wikipedia, let me start off by saying that I assume like most I made my share of mistakes when I started editing organized crime articles, but my information is always correct and has been previously researched. I happen to be very knowledgeable in regards to organized crime history and I am currently writing for two on line organized crime websites, "American Organized Crime" and "Mafia International", which has asked me to create a Canadian mafia page for the site. Not with standing my extensive organized crime knowledge and not being an idiot I soon realized I was new to the Wikipedia site and it's standard writing procedures and guidelines concerning written articles and editing. Through trial and error I came to understand the need and importance of certain article features such as citing sources and will continue to learn from the more experienced Wikipedia users and administrators on the site so I hope you will excuse my past mistakes.

With writing procedures and what not aside for the moment I must address a recent situation or conflict that has occurred. First off, I have had one minor confrontation or conflict (if you can even call it that) with another Wikipedia user or administrator (Mafia Expert). This was truly minor in that it was a disagreement regarding the validity of certain organized crime facts and information and my lack of sources. This occurred when I first came on the Wikipedia site and as of late I have not given it a second thought being that it was just a misunderstanding or disagreement. What is a somewhat more serious matter concerning the Wikipedia site is vandalism, and this is a subject I never even gave a thought to until recently. I myself have never, ever vandalized anyone's work or articles, I would never do such a thing and I'm positive there have been no accusations against me from other Wikipedia users regarding the destruction of their work since I know I have never acted in such a disrespectful manner towards anyone who is part of the Wikipedia community. I am an adult and realize vandalizing someone else's work not only shows disrespect towards the person/author, their work, the website and it's members, but it clearly states something about the guilty party's character. At the same time, I must state that I am not a person who easily disregards disrespect directed at myself or my work being vandalized so I can be tempermental when protecting my interests and self-respect, in other words I don't take shit from anybody when I know I am in the right, but at the same time I can admit when I'm wrong, have acted rash or reacted hastily.

With that said I recently had my personal page vandalized and due to the fact the vandal was logged in at the time of his/her actions I was able to respond to react to the actions of this lowlife, and even then I did not attempt to vandalize his/her work, but I let this person know how I felt about their actions and him/her in general. I had previously never come across this person in any manner, I have had no contact with him/her what so ever and I am still baffled as to why he/she would vandalize my personal page by erasing over 2 hours of work that I had just completed. Let me make it clear I will not apologize for the statements I made or directed to this piece of garbage who goes by the name of "OwenX", who as I have stated do not know in any way, and have never even conversed with, so why this person felt the need to destroy my personal page, I have no idea! No one else, but myself has ever made any additions or any edits to my personal page, but myself, my records will prove that and that OwenX is the one who vandalized my work.

After I made my feelings known and my intentions if this asshole ever disrespected myself and my work ever again especially since I have never shown this person any ill feelings in the past. but I came top realize this person is possibly a Wikipedia administrator. Now, just because this person is possibly a Wikipedia administrator does this mean they have the right to vandalize other people's work with no justification, not that there ever was any justification or reason to begin with. Does holding a position within the Wikipedia administration give that person the ability to abuse his position, to be disruptive, destructive and disrespectful to other users without facing any consequences for his/her actions due to their position? If this person has the freedom to do what ever they wish and too who ever they wish on the Wikipedia site while others have to follow the rules and are held responsible for their actions, this is a disgrace! At the same time, please tell me that an intelligent and realistic person does not expect me to swallow this abuse because if that's what is expected of me from the people who run the website, forget about it, no amount of abuse or disrespect justifies the ability to use this website and I would think that those who run the site would agree with that or they have to question their won characters.

I was recently blocked for 72 hours from making any additions or edits on the Wikipedia website and according to OwenX it was "for making threats, and disruptive userpage moves" and this "will extend to a permanent ban if behavior continues." Once again I have never had any problems on the website or with any of the users on the website, and from looking over OwenX's userpage/discussion page he/she has a obviously been implicated in a few acts of vandalism by other users and has been accused of being abusive in the past. This accusation of "disruptive userpage moves" on my part, the only thing i could think of that OwenX is talking about is that after he erased my work I tried to replace the erased page by going back to my "userpage history" where I attempted to recover the original page of my work, but I was not successful. I would not have had to even attempt to move my userpage or whatever OwenX accuses me of doing if he had not vandalized my userpage in the first place. Once again, I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia site and being that I have never had the need to recover lost I honestly did not know what I was doing, but any intelligent person could understand the amount of anxiety and emotion I felt having just witnessed (yes, the vandalism was done while I was working on the page) my work destroyed so I attempted to recover it, and that's considered destructive userpage moves", it's my userpage, I didn't screw with anybody else's page or any of the articles, so what is this OwenX talking about?. Is this OwenX a total moron and asshole or is it that he/she just gets off on vandalizing people's work and then abusing his/her authority.

Look, this in itself is ridiculous, the fact that I have to be defending myself when my work was vandalized and I have never done such a thing to anyone else beforehand! O.K. I understand that I may have gotten abusive with my language, but in my book that's the least this jerk-off deserved and it's really burning my ass to know this person, OwenX feels he/she is protected from any consequences that any other Wikipedia user would face due to destructive or disruptive behavior. That means I'm a person of moral integrity that hates abuse of any kind and abuse of authority even more so I did not stand for the disrespect that had been shown to me. I would much rather see some kind of equal justice or at least know that when a Wikipedia user is in the right, that they are justified through their own actions in seeking some kind of satisfaction or justice when they have been wronged. In this case my lack of actions are justifications for seeking satisfaction in this situation, in other words the fact that I have never vandalized anybody's work or abused anyone else verbally besides this OwenX (who deserved it) in itself is a justification being that my userpage should have never been touched! There is not one justification OwenX can give for what he/she did to my work or am I suppose to be under the impression that this OwenX is above every other member of the Wikipedia site?

How dare this asshole OwenX think he is justified in vandalizing my work and then by abusing his authority he sanctions me to make his actions appear justified and noble, while the truth of the matter is that ones actions determine their character, not their appearance or position as is the case of OwenX. There is no way, shape or form that OwenX can justify destroying my work and if my actions of towards OwenX justify my being barred from the Wikipedia site, so be it. It is a fact that I did not vandalize any of the work that OwenX has done on Wikipedia or anybody else's for that matter and my statements towards OwenX were justified in book. As far as I'm concerned OwenX is a disgrace to the Wikipedia site and if that is the kind of administrator or what ever he/she is that Wikipedia wants running the site and policing their rules and policies then once again, so be it, but it will be a cold day in hell that I allow some low life with no dignity and self-respect to abuse me!

So, to Phenz, I hope I have cleared up my actions regarding editing without being logged in, and if I have made the mistake of contacting the wrong person in my attempt to clear up the other situation, I'm sorry for wasting your time!

LJS

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Phenz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)