Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:57, 29 April 2008

Archives

August 2006 to December 31, 2007 January to March 2008

hoax!

Speedy deletion of Misplaced Pages:The Trivia Game

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Misplaced Pages:The Trivia Game, to Misplaced Pages. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) .

I quite enjoyed it but its soon time for it to go. Uncyclopedia needs you! GameKeeper (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you've got a copy of this somewhere and can put it somewhere more appropriate for posterity. Inspired, and potentially not such a bad idea for a real product either. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words, but I've been here long enough to know I shouldn't do that sort of thing. I'm glad someone saw the article yesterday, rather than having to g7 it later myself. I'm sorry Orangemike had to waste time dealing with it. I will put any future April Foolery on Uncyclopedia. --Pixelface (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No big. I'm just a grump about April Foolery on Misplaced Pages, since we spend so much time fighting hoaxes and disinformation every other day of the year. It's like "secret pages" and other Facebook-esque content of non-encyclopedic tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List_of_top_100_web_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom

Permission from Alexa. Because Alexa Internet understands that we are an information resource, we are happy to have people refer to our data in their own work. As long as you credit us appropriately as the source, do not mis-represent the data or attribute Alexa Internet with your subsequent analysis thereof, please feel free to cite Alexa's information, including our charts and graphs, in your publications. There is no copyvio here. Can you please reconsider your vote?Anwar (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I initially only made a comment because I hadn't come to a decision, but after reading that FAQ, I've decided to say keep. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Pixelface (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Compete. It's an awesome site. Also, the list is now sortable with additional data from Compete.com. So, it is no longer a wholesale reproduction of Alexa ranks only.Anwar (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do like a good Simpsons quote

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"Keep, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry." Heh.--Father Goose (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am embiggened by your generosity :). --Pixelface (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, you will be blocked from editing. You've been warned many times not to remove it. Sceptre 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. Please read WT:NOT#Plot. A discussion has been going on for over a month and there is no consensus for the Plot summaries section to be under WP:IINFO. And don't template the regulars, Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You need a consensus to remove it, not a no-consensus to keep it. Sceptre 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it needs to have consensus to stay in the policy, which it doesn't have. --Pixelface (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you need a consensus to remove. No consensus results, and always has done, in keeping the status quo. Sceptre 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If an item of policy has no consensus, it needs to be removed. You're thinking of AFD debates Will. --Pixelface (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's always meant "keep the status quo" throughout Misplaced Pages. Sceptre 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to stop the pointy edits, using a thread that was started by your actions as evidence shows how strongly you feel about this, however the discussion on the talk page still hasn't reached a consensus to remove the entry, the closest thing is a proposal to change but not remove, you are edit warring and you should realize that you can be blocked for breaking the 3RR in this case. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a bureacracy. I don't have to show consensus to remove an item from policy that has no consensus. Show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information or go away. --Pixelface (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read the thread? most of the discussion going in there is dealing with the definition that will be used, there is no consensus to remove. Its obvious that you are pushing a issue that was started by your actions too far, and that my friend is the very definition of "disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point". - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the whole thing. Have you? Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Misplaced Pages is not? Plot-only stubs don't make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information and I challenge you to show me consensus otherwise. --Pixelface (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"All the people"? only Taxman has gone as far explicitly saying that it should go in WAF, the others are still discussing what to do with it. You already know that PLOT was kept in NOT by previous consensus and you responded that it was a "consensus of a few" or something along those lines, there is no way I'm going to get involved in a circular argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay my bad there was also SmokeyJoe, that makes three with you. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please read the thread again. I may have mispoke when I said "Do you notice all the people that said it belongs in WP:WAF and not a list of things Misplaced Pages is not?" And Taxman is against removing the Plot summaries section. However, Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy." , DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there." 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content." , Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest." , SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF." , Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not." , and Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here.". Now you show me where there's consensus that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing

Your consistent removal and blanking of sections of the Misplaced Pages policy page, what wikipedia is not, is disruptive and unconstructive. Collected and civil discussion with the wider editorial community (that means talk page discussion, for the record) is the way to address qualms with the content of policy, not blanking and forcing through your opinion with reverting. I have blocked you for 12 hours; please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages. Anthøny 19:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have removed a section of WP:IINFO that does not have consensus on the talk page. I have discussed the removal of that section extensively on the talk page. And I have not violated the three revert rule.

Decline reason:

No consensus means no change - this is standard procedure across the project, and applies to everything from deletion debates to policy discussions. Unless there is a clear consensus to make your changes, they should not be made. The manner in which you made the changes is also disruptive. You are encouraged to read WP:CON while you wait for your block to expire. — Hersfold 19:13, 16 April 2008 (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.

I've read Misplaced Pages:Consensus. It says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. Past decisions are open to challenge and should not be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page. " and "Remember that we try to document actual practice, not prescribe rule-sets." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it."

If the Plot summaries section of WP:IINFO had consensus to be in WP:NOT on WT:NOT, I would not have removed it. But several people stated it belongs in a guideline, not WP:NOT. And I have shown on WT:NOT that the Plot summaries section did not have consensus even when it was first proposed in June 2006. I made one removal and one revert on April 16, 2008 and I have been blocked. Sceptre should be able to demonstrate a higher standard of consensus that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information. He has failed to do that. If the Plot summaries section actually had consensus, there would not be people saying it belongs in a guideline.

The editor who reverted me , Sceptre, mistakenly thinks that that part of policy is in there because it has to do with "derivative works" and fair use restrictions, and it does not. I believe this is simply harassment by Sceptre, who was also an involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not the same as unanimity. You still disagree with consensus; that doesn't give you authority to rewrite things to fit your (distinctly minority) view. Sceptre and Hersfold are speaking for the consensus here in their actions. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus for that section to be a part of policy. --Pixelface (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixel the reason behind you actions seems apparent, its common knowledge by your participation on AFDs that you have a tendency to protect some fictional articles, thus you seem to be trying to get PLOT degraded from a policy such as NOT to a guideline in WAF, in the process opening the door to future debates about the validity of the guideline in AFD just like FICT. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can show consensus that plot-only stubs make Misplaced Pages an indiscriminate collection of information, please do so. I'm all ears right now. --Pixelface (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also no consensus for it to be removed. Since it being there is the status quo, there it must remain until consensus is created to change it. If you really believe there is a consensus for its removal, a better way of doing this is to create a centralised discussion, similar to the one currently happening concerning non-free image policy. Black Kite 19:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If a section has no consensus to be a part of a policy, it doesn't belong in that policy. Period. Misplaced Pages:Consensus says "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it." and "In the case of policy pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected." and "if one person or a limited group of people can reasonably demonstrate a change in consensus, then it is reasonable to effect the change at a process page." and "If you notice that a particular policy or guideline page is not in line with current consensus, feel free to update it." So policy pages have a higher standard for removing a section rather than leaving a section in there? And I won't be starting a centralized discussion, because I'm still blocked. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot injunction at WP:NOT has been there a long time and you simply have no basis for asserting that it does not reflect consensus beyond the extension of your own views. That is tendentious and to remove it as you have done IS pointy and disruptive and vandalism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Caribbean H.Q. in the section above (that begins with (outdent)). WP:VANDAL says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." And WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop." I received one warning from Sceptre, a level 3 warning — and the only warning for "vandalism" I have ever received in my 22 months on Misplaced Pages — incidentally by someone who was an involved party of the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. I've never vandalized Misplaced Pages in my life (although I did create a page on April Fool's Day that was deleted per WP:CSD#G3, but it was really more unsourced speculation than a hoax.) Was it "vandalism" when Hobit removed that section from policy? While it pleases me to see you and Black Kite take an interest in this matter, your claim of "vandalism" Eusebeus, is false. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock |1= ] my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on ]. ] then gave me a {{tl|uw-vandalism3}} warning on my talk page.. Sceptre then again my removal of a portion of policy that does not have consensus on ]. Sceptre then me as a vandal to ]. I was blocked by AGK for "Vandalism: at Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not; per WP:AIV thread." I was not vandalizing ] and this block is completely unwarranted. If I am not unblocked, I will be leaving Misplaced Pages. I don't have to put up with this kind of harassment.}}

I'll leave my second unblock request that went unanswered for three hours here in case anyone wants to read it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving

This "vandal" has left Misplaced Pages. --Pixelface (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't! You're an asset to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi pixelface, as a fellow burnout in FICT, I'm hoping you will reconsider leaving Misplaced Pages. Do like I did: empty your watchlist, focus on something less controversial. Abandon the sinking ship that is "fiction within wikipedia". There is no reason to keep it afloat if soo many crew-mates are shooting holes in the bulkheads. It might sound cynical, but I can tell you that my joy in editing returned instantly. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

? I'm a little confused. I don't recall Pixelface doing any work on fiction. Film, games, perhaps television, some non-fiction items; but not fiction. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

or even do as I do--keep working on it, but limit myself to one comment there every day or two or three, and not check back in the interim. We will get there yet, but The DJ is right that over-concentration destroys the fun of working here. DGG (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We've disagreed on a lot of stuff, but I would say that you're a good guy who has a lot of good points. If you're feeling burnt out then take your time, but I do hope you return in some form. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you read this, I'd like to add my own voice - I've seen you around while editing and at AFDs, and always thought that you had some pretty decent things to say. I too would be sorry if you were gone for good - especially over what looks like a poor block decision. - Bilby (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual unblock

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_and_contributor_discussion:_Pixelface

It took longer than the 12-hour span of the block, so an unblock is moot at this point, but cooler minds are prevailing now, and asserting that the block was inappropriate. (Ignore the partisan comments, of which there are many: ANI is ANI.)--Father Goose (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you ever stop being facetious? Sceptre 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. I asked you three honest questions and you have refused to answer them. I've tried to discuss with you and you have refused. It doesn't appear to me that you want to resolve this matter. Shall I notify the arbitration committee? --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think will happen? I think you're inflaming the dispute way more than I am. Sceptre 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you're not going to apologize for filing a false vandalism report on me which got me blocked? --Pixelface (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, AGK saw it enough to be blockable, and we're both experienced enough (35 months on Misplaced Pages for me, and AGK is an arbcom clerk)... and besides, saying you have consensus does not mean you have it; that's lawyering around the blanking clause of vandalism. That, and you were warned multiple times to stop removing the section. Good faith only stretches so far. Sceptre 10:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AGK doesn't appear to have read the vandalism policy either, which I find extremely disturbing since he's an administrator — and especially since MedCom members are supposed to know the difference between content disputes and vandalism. Was this edit of yours vandalism because Bardin reverted it?

You've been here 35 months, do you think you have a good idea of what vandalism is and is not?

Please read the vandalism policy if you haven't already. It says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." It also says "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person."

WP:VAND#NOT list the following as "What vandalism is not":

• Making bold edits
• Stubbornness
• Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration

It also says "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors."

WP:AIV says "This page is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only". WP:AIV also says "The vandal must be active now, and have vandalised after sufficient recent warnings to stop."

Did I vandalize after a level 4 warning Will? Did I even receive a level 1 or level 2 warning? Why did you give me a level 3 vandalism warning for an edit to a policy page? I would have been treated with more dignity if I had added "is an idiot" to the George W. Bush article.

And please read my recent summary of the thread at WT:NOT which is my interpretation of the discussion and why I removed the section. Could you please provide diffs to show that I was "warned multiple times to stop removing the section"?

Either you don't understand the vandalism policy or you've been abusing AIV. So which is it? I see you've made 636 edits to WP:AIV. How many of those have been bad reports? I don't know what's worse. That you've been here 35 months and have made 636 edits to AIV and don't know what vandalism is, or that an admin MedCom member doesn't know the difference between a content dispute and vandalism. --Pixelface (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)\

Tu quoque. You can read the history of the page, yes? Besides, the line "Policy/guideline/essay/other project namespace page alteration" applies to bold edits (such as typo fixing, example adding), not repeated removals. Sceptre 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not "vandalism" Will, as has been explained by multiple people in the AN thread that you filled with misinformation. And the "blanking" portion of WP:VANDAL says "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Now, did you mean to call my second removal vandalism or did Twinkle do it for you? --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again with the lawyering. And an explanation wasn't really given on the talk page. Sceptre 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave an explanation in my edit summary. The discussion had been going at WT:NOT for over a month and there was no consensus for that section to remain in policy. You can read the thread again if you'd like. Hobit removed that same section from policy. Why didn't you put a vandalism template on his talk page? --Pixelface (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And Will, regarding a comment you made at AN, it contained three false claims. You said "His actions caused the Episodes and characters 2 case." and that is totally false. My actions caused Corvus cornix to start an ANI thread where he falsely claimed I was reverting all of TTN's edits. That's easily disproved by looking at my first 15 reverts. It was Eusebeus and TTN who turned them into redirects (and Eusebeus, by the way, was blocked for editwarring over them, and continues to editwar over them, as can be seen at WP:AE). I was turning the Scrubs episode articles back into articles because I saw no consensus for them to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. And if it was *my* actions that "caused" the Episodes and characters 2 case, why did the arbitration committee restrict TTN? You're second false claim was "Specifically, edit warring on Scrubs episode articles." The arbitration committee and other editors found no evidence I was edit warring over Scrubs articles, look at the Workshop. Look at the history of articles like My Mentor and tell me who's been editwarring. Finally, you said "Him saying there's no consensus for PLOT is just wrong - only he agrees that it should be removed." and that's easily disproved because Hobit also removed that section from policy. And I can certainly provide more diffs if you'd like.

• Father Goose said "This is more a style issue than a content issue, so the appropriate place for it is arguably in a guideline, not in a content-exclusion policy."
• DGG said "More generally, NOT PLOT as it is written does not belong in NOT--policy should be general principles, not the details found there."
• 23skidoo said "I agree with those who feel this is better suited for MoS rather than trying to pigeonhole it into a policy that, technically, is intended to supress content."
• Eubulide said "I object to treating plot details in a different way than other types of sourced information in WP." and "This is done only for plot summaries and nobody gave an explanation for this exception. If an article is missing real-world context, the reasonable approach is to add such context, not delete the rest."
• SmokeyJoe said "I think WP:NOT#PLOT, as written, belongs in WP:WAF."
• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said "We should remove the plot section of what Misplaced Pages is not."
• Hobit said "I'll chime in by saying I don't think issues of plot summary should be here." and Hobit later said "I think at the least WP:PLOT lacks consensus and shouldn't be here"

And there's tons of opposition easily found in the WT:NOT archives. You appear to be embarassed by my message, so I've left this on my talk page if you'd like to respond. --Pixelface (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Return

Welcome back! - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. --Pixelface (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah welcome.... but please stop deleting Scrubs episodes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makecba (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't even begin to say what's wrong with that statement. --Pixelface (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, do would you enable email? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I do have an email address I could specify in my profile, in general I am against all off-wiki communication — including IRC, mailing lists, and email. I think private communication is antithetical to the open and transparent wiki process. I hope you understand. --Pixelface (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

An admirable policy. Welcome back, glad you've returned--Jac16888 (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to be back. When I said I was leaving, not only was I frustrated for being blocked for supposed vandalism, but that was also one of the worst days of the worst flu I can ever remember having. I'm doing much better now, although I am still sick. --Pixelface (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if private conversation were used for any nefarious means, but my intentions were friendly in nature, as you made my list of nice Wikipedians and my list of wise Wikipedians. Regards and feel better soon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt your intentions one bit Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. I think you're a great editor and one of the genuinely nicest editors I've met. I'm glad there are editors like you on this site and it's a pleasure to work with you. But my main interest here is to write and improve articles (and I have to admit I don't check my email much anyways). If you would like to tell me something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your message by the way, after I said I was leaving. I was very upset, and it feels good to know someone thinks I'm an asset to the project. I truly appreciate it. And thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically when you left I had hoped to be able to send you an email repeating what I said on your talk page just in case if you had stopped looking at your talk page. Anyway, thank you for the kind words. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a technical note, you can add an e-mail address in your prefs, but disable the "e-mail this user" feature, which would be very useful incase you had to reset a password, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Pixelface (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stumble upon your talk, not sure why you wanted to go previously, but I am very glad you've decided to come back. You are a valuable contributor and your work has been admired by many (even if they don't necessarily tell you that everyday ;)) I hope you're feeling well. Have a beautiful weekend, --PeaceNT (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I am feeling better than I was, thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add my unoriginal welcome. You may find it empowering (whatever that means) to know that I have been blocked on what was later considered an unconvincing basis. While the event was inconceivable beforehand, I've taken it as a sort of Purple Heart for sticking to my convictions. My RfA passed half a year later.
I am, of course, very much not saying "Go get more", but wave your flag and hold your head up high. Heh. --Kizor 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kizor. --Pixelface (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)