User talk:Evilphoenix

From ClemsonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purge Well Holy Shit, but you're a busy little bee. We're all glad you decided to stop by, and mighty thankful for the work you're doing. -levine

Thank you. Evilphoenix 23:17, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Yuh- I recognize your handle from the Main Wiki side - seen your edits in history columns a buncha times...

I wrote copy for Tiger and TAPS in the 1970s and served as an lower editor at both. Did lotsa research - wrote muy articles in newspaper and annual. Also killed time in Tiger Band and at WSBF. Grades to prove it.

I just HATE writing about Clemson...

Mark Sublette Falls Church, Virginia

(Full bio on the Main Wiki side under "Mark Sublette".)

Well if you hate it so much, why do it? Evilphoenix 12:52, 8 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I am being completely facetious! I love the place...



Your contributions are tremendously appreciated! You seem to have a lot of experience working over at the Wikipedia, and we're mainly just amateurs. If you've got some ideas as to how we can improve architectually, feel free to improve upon our work. Thanks for joining.

If you're bored, be sure to join ClemsonTALK too. - Victor 21:17, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I only have been over at Wikipedia for about two months, but it's been a great learning project! As far as architectually, I'd suggest a place to organize work on the Wiki, similar to the WikiProjects over on Wikipedia. I noticed that there is a Project:Administrators, which implies that Projects would be its own Namespace, but I think you could do something like ClemsonWiki:Project Professors, which would be a project about adding information about professors. Why not start with ClemsonWiki:Project Clemson, and have that be the main Project page, and all other project pages be children of that one? That would be a central place to discuss changes, and list tasks that need doing. I can go ahead and work on setting that up, if you'd like. Evilphoenix 23:17, 1 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Run with it. We'll follow your lead. - Victor 14:22, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Is it entirely neccessary to break down categories to the level that you're doing it? There needs to be a balance between organizational hierarchy and practical usability. For example, I'm not sure a Clemson restaurant needs to belong to more categories than "Restaurants". If someone writes an article about Quiznos and has to include it in "Clemson Businesses," "Restauraunts," "Sandwich Shops," and "Fast Food," things can get complicated quickly. --Levine 13:31, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

He's using subcats. For example, McDonald's is part of "Fast Food", but "fast food" is part of "Restaurants", so if you show all listings for Restaurants, you should get all fast foods as well, without having to implicitly place McDonald's as part of the Restaurants category. - Victor 16:54, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I clearly have no idea how the Wiki works. Onward! --Levine 18:20, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Naming conventions

I realised that one of the reasons why I decided to do last name first for professors was so that when you do a listing of professors in a category, the wiki software lists them in some sort of order. If all article names for the professors are all listed [first] [last], then you're going to get a category listing that doesn't really make sense alphabetically. Know what I mean? Solutions? - Victor 19:42, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)

I just checked at the Wikipedia, and it seems that they have it setup perfectly. People are listed [first] [last], and somehow they show up alphabetically listed by last name correctly. Do you know how this is done? - Victor 19:45, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)
Yes, it's by typing the name is with the category. for example, In the Eddie Smith article, it should say [[Category:Professors|Smith]]. This sorts the entry under "smith" in the category page, instead of Eddie. I've hit most of the ones in the Category:Professors category, but I the ones in PoliSci professors still need sorting. Evilphoenix 23:20, 21 Aug 2005 (EDT)


You recently removed some stuff from the Clemson University article, citing POV. I think the ClemsonWiki is unique, and benefits greatly, in that it is an intensely personal compendium, reflecting personal attitudes and perspectives. I think it is not our duty to simply echo PR bulletpoints, for example, or summarize official Clemson information, but to provide a relevant and compelling first person - even somewhat biased - view of things here. To that end, I feel like the things you removed in the CU article were entirely appropriate - even necessary. Thoughts? --Levine 00:35, 23 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I just don't think saying "In many respects the University is a sanctuary from the surrounding area, but the Bible-thumpin', gun-carryin', God-fearin' quotient is pervasive." really puts the best foot forward of the University. I also think it's a bit negative. I also think the bit about Mrs. degrees just wasnt in the best taste. I think there can be room for personal opinion and a less formal writing style, but I those in particular take it to an extreme further than one I'm comfortable with. Evilphoenix 02:12, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)
ClemsonWiki's purpose or function is not to put the best foot forward of the University, nor to be generally positive, nor to always be in the best taste. Writing stuff that's provably wrong is one thing, but squelching negative opinions will quickly make the site absolutely useless. --Levine 17:02, 27 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I suppose my feelings derive from the fact that most of my experience dealing with wikis is from being an editor on Wikipedia itself, which has shaped my approach to dealing with Wikis. Over there, the idea is to be as completely neutral as possible in discussing issues, we want to state facts, not opinions. Now, ClemsonWiki is not Wikipedia, and as such there is more leeway in what I can do as both an editor and an Administrator. It's not so much that I feel our goal should be to "put the best foot forward", what I was trying to convey was that I felt the edits reflected poorly on the University, and that putting a bad image of the University was not a good idea. I'm interested in what's true about the University, so say that there's a "Bible thumpin" quotient might be true, but it's also not provable. It's an opinion, it would be better to state something like: "68 percent of students are regular churchgoers" or something like that. For what it's worth, Wikis in general aren't really intended to be "personal", the nature of the software and system is to be collaborative, and feelings of personal attachment to articles and submissions to articles can get in the way of that. I'm certainly not trying to discourage other users, mainly just unfounded criticisms and stereotyping. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:40, 20 December 2005 (EST)

I can WALK!

That's the last line that Dr. Strangelove utters in the movie...

You commented on my talk page that you thought the quote was unrelated to the 1975 entry I listed for the film shown in Tillman...



Yep, I'm on the regular Wikipedia with the same username. I do edits inbetween tasks at work. --TheKoG 09:16, 1 March 2006 (EST)


The new front page looks amazing. Good job! Victor 19:03, 1 April 2006 (EST)

Thanks! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:17, 1 April 2006 (EST)

Hmm. looks like the server is slowing down. I'll just take a break. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:25, 1 April 2006 (EST)


testing again


Okay - I read through the Clemson-Carolina rivalry stuff and have posted some thoughts at the bottom of the column. I could have expounded further, but I think I stated my notions on the subject pretty clearly.


C. Mark Sublette

Thanks, I'll check it out soon. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:25, 2 April 2006 (EDT)

Upgraded to latest MediaWiki (1.5.8)

There may be some templates that are different than that of the Wikipedia, but I'm not expert on Wikipedia or even MediaWiki. Let me know if you need anything else. I'll try to help where I can, but I've been pretty busy as of late. - Victor 18:04, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

Ok cool, I'll see how it goes. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:33, 4 April 2006 (EDT)

Hail and well met!

Dear Naughty Flaming Bird:

The cherry blossoms are in full tilt 'round the Tidal Basin here in the Washington area, but we are having thunderstorms passing through tonight, so that will probably winnow out the blooms.

I got your new message when I got in from the railroad yesterday. Thanks for all of your very kind comments. I agree - we make a good team. I am not really that much into maintaining the architecture of the website, but I really dig the research side of it all. I love spending time in archives and libraries - you should go to the National Archives sometime! - and, as I have stated before, I have a large library of Clemson source material, although much of 1969-71 stuff comes out of my living at the Strom Center for about three hours when I was in town for Homecoming last November, reading old bound copies of the Tiger.

I really like the changes you have made on the front page. I think the What Happened Today thing is a really good idea, as it presents material that the casual visitor may not discover. One request though - please put back the Wanted Pages link on the front page - I regular use it to see what needs looking after. Thanx in advance! Also, taking your cue, I went through the entire year-by-year section tonight and wikified pretty much every date for you. Have at it, my boy!

I am bemused by the discussion over on the Main Wiki side that no original research should be used to generate articles or changes thereto. As a writer who has contributed to national and international magazines, as well as my newspaper time at the Tiger and the Messenger, I have plenty of by-lines for my reporting. So lemme get this straight - if I have published my research already, I can quote it in Wiki updates, but if I have the same personal research that would generate those articles, I CAN'T use it? Something doesn't seem right - for me, the exact line on what is admissable seems blurred.

See the query in the Talk section for the Bomarc Missile Program on the main Wiki side to see where I got this thought-train...

The crux of the biscuit,


Well I think the issue for Wikipedia is the intent to be an encylopedia. Encyclopedias want to be tertiary sources of informantion. What I mean by that is that they want to summarize and explain what other people have said about a given topic, not to say their own thoughts on a given topic. With that in mind, they're not really wanting to have primary sources of information, but secondary or tertiary sources. For example, I do a lot of work on J. K. Rowling. Now, let's say I were to meet Ms. Rowling and interview her. Whatever words come out of her mouth are a primary source of information. If I use that to add to Wikipedia, then I'm doing original research. However, if someone else interviews her, and writes it down, what he writes is a secondary source of information. Then if someone cites that for Wikipedia, it becomes a tertiary source of information. Does that make sense? The other big thing theyre looking for with all that is just the idea of citation, and saying not what editors of Wikipedia think is true, but what someone else has said is true, and phrasing it in such a way. It's no good for me to go and say: "Politician X is a lying crook" on Wikipedia, regardless of the accuracy of that statement. It's something different to say "In a recent New York Times article, the newspaper alleged that Politician X has been involved in an embezzlement scheme" (citation). Does that make sense? So yes, information you wrote for other publishings based on your research is fine, because it's other sources. That same information, if based on your research, doesn't work as well for Wikipedia, because if you're using it for other publishings, its a secondary source, etc. Does that make sense? As far as things go on this Wiki, they're not nearly as strict. I don't personally care about No Original Research, and I try to keep it somewhat NPOV. But the fact is if I were as strict about citation and sources on here as I would be there, we would have like, no content.
Thanks for your work wikifying dates. That's a real help.
I'll add that link to Special:Newpages back in, but for the time being, there's one for you. You can also access it by hitting the special pages tab on the bottom left over there <----- ,and clicking on New Pages. It'll be a bit before I update again, I'm driving home to SC from Rhode Island for the next day or so.
Also, it might be helpful if on the Main Wiki you'd sign your Talk page posts, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Thanks again, Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 10:27, 8 April 2006 (EDT)

Killin time?

Hey EP, did you enable Killin Time? It can't seem to figure out where the settings for it are. It's banning a legitimate user, and Clemson's IP block of 130.127.*. That's bad. How can we fix?

I'm not sure what you even mean. No, I haven't enabled anything. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 21:06, 10 April 2006 (EDT)
See . Cosmos is trying to log in from a 130.127.* address, but apparently there's a bot called Killin Time that has autobanned that IP block. I'll poke around MediaWiki to figure it out, I guess.
I unblocked Killin Time's blocks, but i'm mystified. It does register as a username, but not as a sysop. I dont think it ever was a sysop. Weird. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:18, 11 April 2006 (EDT)

Judge Keller's

Hey there - - -

I think I screwed up a bit. Looking back at links, I think that I ought to have named the article Judge Keller's Store rather than "Judge" Keller's. It would link to other references better... Is there a way to retitle an already written article without just doing redirects? Or do I need to wipe the whole thing and reconstruct it under a new title?

Sub* C. Mark Sublette 11:54, 15 April 2006 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 11:54, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

It's easy, just to a page move. Use the tab marked "Move" on the top of the screen. It will create a redirect where the article originally was, but you can use the "what links here" button over on the left side to go back and change all the wikilinks to point to the new title instead of the redirect. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:53, 16 April 2006 (EDT)

New April stuff

Okay - I've just been rummaging back through issues of The Tiger for a bunch more April stuff for you, but in most cases, this is always about the final issue of the semester so I don't have much to go into May with...

I'll see if I can't bang out a rudimentary Bengal Ball article - I know when it began but I'm a little shaky on when it finally ended - probably concurrent with the drinking age being raised to 21, or perhaps just to the "Just say no" Nancy Reagan era... I know that Bill Mandicott, who ran the Union Bengal Ball-type events, was getting pretty fed up with the tightening up of the university sphincter by the time that Max Lennon came along. Mandicott took another Union director - type job up some where like Rhode Island, I think I heard...

As for McClellan, et al... I'll see what I can do. May not have full bio data on 'em, but I'll give it a look.

BTW, thanx for re-linking the Judge Kellers article. I had to go out on the train before I could get round to ddoing the edit, and by the time I got back yew had alreddy did it.


I'm taking a break

I'm going to be on a break for the next week or so, due to going on a trip. Just wanted to let y'all know. The Main page should update just fine for the time I'll be gone, but please do keep an eye on things. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:12, 24 April 2006 (EDT)


We've got every other year EXCEPT the ones from the 1940s listed separately under Clemson History by Year - I was just adding in the missing decade... Check it out...

C. Mark Sublette 17:32, 25 April 2006 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 17:32, 25 April 2006 (EDT)

I know, I hadn't created the other decade categories yet. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:25, 29 April 2006 (EDT)



C. Mark Sublette 17:32, 30 April 2006 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 17:32, 30 April 2006 (EDT)

The Phoenix arises

Ola! Welcome back from your sojourn!

Lotsa stuff going on... coed murder, and all.

We've got a new contributor. Nate Stipe of Tampa, Florida is adding player bios in the athletics section.

C. Mark Sublette 12:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 12:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Thanks, yeah I saw. It makes me happy. About the new contributor that is. The local death makes me very unhappy. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 12:32, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Future Sysop?

Man, oh man !

Have we lucked into a good guy or what?

Nate Stipe of Tampa, Florida is cranking out all sorts of solid Clemson athletic material! His editing is a bit loose, but he picks up style cues from a single example. Mayhap, we may have our fifth sysop on the horizon?


C. Mark Sublette 00:32, 7 June 2006 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 00:32, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

Yes, Nate's doing a great job, and I'm glad he's come on board. I disagree though about needing another sysop. There's a difference between contributing and administrating, both in functions and qualities needed on a Wiki. The fact is, right now we don't really need another sysop... there's just not that much sysop function stuff that needs doing...we don't have that much that needs deleting, we dont at this time have a big issue with vandalism, so theres not much blocking to be done. Nor do we really have arguments flaring over content, so we dont need pages protected. What really would be helpful would be more help keeping up with the Mainpage, or if Nate wanted to do a sort of Athletics portal, that might be a sort of gateway to an Athletics section, but if he wants to just crank on with adding football related content, thats fine too. Does that all make sense? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:19, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

Editing info


I noticed the discussion between you and Mark re: sysop. I'm just happy to contribute. If you end up wanting to grant sysop priviledges, that's great. I saw you changed some links to go directly to Wiki- I saved the formatting style so I can do that in the future. I'm pretty green with knowing all the tricks to link, categories etc. Any help is appreciated. I'd like to eventually make my contributions formated as best as possible the 1st time. I'm just basicly copying example I see on the site.

I personally really enjoy the site but don't see too much activity on it from that many people? With all the students/alumni out there I would like to see more interaction. Any idea how we can get the word out? Thanks again Nate stipe 19:56, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

How do I update the news on the front page?

I don't know how to unlock the main page, and I'm not sure where the news blurbs are hidden...



P.S. - Is anybody else editing this these days? I could also use some help creating those cool little calendar boxes on the History by Month pages...

Most of the content on the Main Page is under Templates...edit the Templates to change the Main Page. Check out User:Evilphoenix/Templates, that might help somewhat. As far as locking an unlocking, you're also an Admin so you have those privileges. It's the Protect or Unprotect button at the top of your editing window. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 13:21, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

==Okay, I obviously haven't got the featured article template figured out, yet. I have left a failed experiment at the top of the Main Page. You feex?

Thanx, Sub*

C. Mark Sublette 02:01, 20 November 2006 (EST)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 02:01, 20 November 2006 (EST)

You still editing?

It seems like I'm about the only person still doing any serious work on this site. Are you still active?

C. Mark Sublette 02:16, 15 January 2007 (EST)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 02:16, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Went to the D.C. Wiki meet on Saturday

Hey, dude!

I went down to Union Station and met upwards of two dozen other regional Wikipedians at Uno's Pizza last Saturday. A very interesting get-together! We even had a vice counsel there! Neat to meet faces behind the anonymous editing identities! Afterwards, about half adjourned for further "session" at the Brickskeller on 23rd Street, NW, where they purvey about a thousand beers.

When I told them that the stand-alone ClemsonWiki is averaging about 325 hits a week, they seemed impressed. If we could link more often inside the main Wiki, I bet we'd get even better counts!

The meeting adjourned about 10:30 p.m.


C. Mark Sublette 17:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)C. Mark SubletteC. Mark Sublette 17:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)