User talk:PhilKnight/Archive12

Thanks.

Thanks for the barnstar. As you probably noticed: I'm experiencing a run in with an acquaintance of yours. It looks like its the same behavior you witnessed back with Muero. He ignored my 1st request for restraint. I've asked him again, we'll see how that goes over. ccwaters 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The strokes. Did I list it properly? ccwaters 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however you should add your signature to "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Addhoc 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Attribute Insufficient For Multiple Users

At the beginning of this month, you let me know that I could use the "quote" attribute of a citation template to help future editors pinpoint the source of a fact. Just now, a question has occurred to me. What if I want to use the same source for multiple facts? I would then have multiple quotes - how would that work? Have I unearthed a defect in the current system? --Seans Potato Business 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that's a problem - the same applies when editors want to quote different pages from the same book. Addhoc 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to include it in the <ref> tag to make <ref name=spongebob quote="As a child, Confucius was said to have enjoyed putting ritual vases on the sacrifice table.">? If this were an accepted norm among editors, then it would allow quicker verification of sources, right? -Seans Potato Business 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas19

Hi, you have had some dealings with this editor. I'd appreciate your opinion regarding a suspected sockpuppet if you have time. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lukas19. Cheers. Alun 14:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thank you, PhilKnight, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicO Talk

CB radio in the United Kingdom

I strongley disagree with the "un-notable" proposal tagged onto CB radio in the United Kingdom. Compared to individual obsucre video game characters, this article is positively mainstream. Please reconsider. True, the article needs knowledgeable help, as do about 1 milllion plus other Wikipedia articles. --Wtshymanski 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, PhilKnight, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I received to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name day

A little prod-happy, no? A quick read of the article establishes notability. I agree there are problems with the article (in particular that it does not cite sources) but nothing that warrants deletion! Deletion is an extreme act and should be used with caution... --HappyDog 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... 27 months of a references tag - not enough time? Addhoc 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still no reason to delete. Maybe nominate it for Collaboration of the week, if you feel the need for action. --HappyDog 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angeles City

hi big A,

thanks for your explanation of why you reverted the article. while i obviously dont agree with it (or i wouldnt have written what i did!) it is nice to know why it was reverted. i received no information on the previous revert other than the "nonsense" written in the history comment. that was the reason for calling it vandalism.

i am trying to provide as many citations as i can when inserting information. i am apparently failing to see where the "original research" line is. it doesnt seem to me that original research is providing department of justice figures backed up by newspaper articles. i would think original research would be walking out my front door, going down the street and into a go-go bar and asking a 23 year old virgin go-go dancer what she thinks of someone calling her a sex slave and then providing you with an audio tape of her laughing hysterically.

that is basically what i am up against here. there is a very small group of people that are intent on slandering the city i live in. there are problem's here jsut like every other city of its size. the citizens, law enforcement and elected officials do a good job of correcting the problems in Angeles, unlike many other places in the philippines. i think this may be due to the strong influence the american military had on the region (but that would be original research!!). it is very hard to prove a negative. if i were to write an article on flying reindeer you would probably have a tough time disproving it. i am sure i can come up with quite a few references to flying reindeer in the press but there probably arent many articles on reindeer not being able to fly because nobody really cares to write a story about that. nobody cares to write a story that nobody was arrested today for human trafficking and not one sex slave was found.

i spent several hours today correcting errors in susan bryce's statements, such as "the australian law reform commission did a study" when in fact it didnt. these are all lost now due to this revert. i think it would have been better to delete or at least move what you found controversial to the discussion page. however, lately it seems nobody wishes to discuss the article. they just keep reverting back to the old extremely biased article.

anyway, thanks again for your explanation. RodentofDeath 12:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mallory merger

Hello Addhoc, I've replied to you at Talk:Controversy over Harry Potter. Best, --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-05_Sprite_(lightning)

Do u know an editor / administrator with experience to intervene in this editing dispute. EnviroGranny 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vassyana, who has already commented on the talk page, is a highly capable mediator. Addhoc 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have u advised this editor that he is now responsible for this task ? Has the editor agreed to the task ? I see the case is still in limbo Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases EnviroGranny 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decade nostalgia

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Decade nostalgia, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Oo7565 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that. Addhoc 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20_Topics_in_ufology

Hello Addhoc! Would you please take a peek at the above MEDCAB case? I picked it up recently and need someone with a bit more experience to look over my shoulder. This is my first case and I don't want to mess it up. We've managed to get people to cease warring but there are still some serious content issues to be resolved. Any advice would be terrific. Thanks! JodyB talk 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Addhoc 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Voice of Britain talk page deletion

I don't see this listed on the misc pages for deletion. I would like to comment as I am no longer editing the Child sexual abuse article because I find his stalking behavior, and the actions of his colleague, Jillium, intimidating. I'd like to be able to put a note on some official place about that. If you could comment on my talk page I'd appreciate it. Thanks. SamDavidson 11:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I've just added the nomination. Given the nature of this dispute, I would suggest this is probably going to end up at ArbCom.Addhoc 11:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism Article

Thanks for your help creating the new article. It's too bad the wikipedian forces of darkness were able to subvert the process long enough to muster all of their forces and then were able to close the vote when they had the advantage. It's too bad because their strongest argument was that the Matrixism wasn't discussed in enough depth in the sources could have been addressed. Firstly the discussion of Matrixism in "The Joy of Sects" was quite deep. This source could have been used more. Secondly according to Wikipedia policy discussion of little depth can be made up for by having numerous sources.

Anyhow, my question to you is: Is there any further appeal process we can bring this article to. I don't believe the process has been quite fair up to this point. 206.124.144.3 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is an appeal being heard at WP:DRV#Matrixism. Beyond this, I'm not sure. Addhoc 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smile

JuJube has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JuJube 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Fellowship of Friends page mediation

Hi Addhoc, could you take a look at the Talk page of the FoF? We are having an issue with the mediator (Coren) that has been absent for several days. Thank you. Mario Fantoni 01:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Addhoc 09:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beter

Great work fixing the Peter Beter article. Thanks!--Dcooper 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, why did you "stubify" this article? It's missing a lot of information now... -Eep² 12:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully to address some of the concerns raised in the AfD. Addhoc 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Addhoc, thank you very much for improving this article and for all what you've done so far, lets just hope that these guys wake up and fix this deletion nonsense. dr beter has done so much for the good of this nation and the least we could is to show him the respect that he deserves. p.s:i know that you sincerely trying to improve the quality of this article, but don't you think that "stubifying" it is a bit too much?? :-( Grandia01 16:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes possibly, however the longer version was still attracting delete 'votes'. If this version survives, from there a neutral, reliably sourced article can be written. Addhoc 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why did you remove any references to his audio tape series that is very popular among conspiracy theorists and is often quoted by them? -Eep² 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the audio tape series described by any reliable sources? Addhoc 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post, April 15, 1979. The Wanderers' Peter Beter song lyrics mention his tapes, and the lyrics are found on many lyrics websites. -Eep² 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know this sounds weird,but can you do a little "tidying" on dr beter's page??i don't know-yet-how to cite sources neatly.can you please do it for me?? thank you and sorryGrandia01 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Quote on your userpage

Hi, I was pondering if you could check that source. It seems to be an unrelated discussion. I agree with Jimbo that {{fact}} is overused and would like to put this on my own userpage as a word of wisdom. -- Cat chi? 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is currently here Addhoc 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added it to my userpage: User:Cool_Cat#Moment_of_Zen -- Cat chi? 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Hougue Bie

It would have been useful if you had put an "unsourced" tag on the Jersey legends material rather than removing it, as I could have filled in the sources for the Dragon legend, e.g. L'Amy, Jersey Folklore. Could you reinstate, and I will add sources. Thanks. --TonyinJersey 08:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the text onto the talk page, please don't include any more unsourced material. Also could you ensure your contributions are written in the formal style expected of an encyclopedia. Thanks, Addhoc 09:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of My User Page

My user page was deleted by someone named Radiant. What can I do about this? Matrixism 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copy at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. Addhoc 15:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Newspapers.jpg

Hello. I noticed you tagged the image for deletion. May I asked why? There was no listing at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion (BTW, that page takes an hour to load and makes my computer crash). There is currently a question about whether the image needs any non-free tags or a fair-use rationale on the talk page, but that question can be settled without deleting the image. nadav 23:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've list on tomorrow's page, because today's page is way too long. It could be tagged as fair-use and kept, however the inclusion of the spectacles is slightly odd. Addhoc 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it would be more encyclopedic without the spectacles. I'll ask Gila Brand if she wants to upload a new version. But for now, it's a useful picture for the Haaretz article. The image was originally tagged fair use, but jbolden1517 has removed it. I really think it should have the tag and rationale and have been trying to avoid an edit war about this. If the image is not deleted, then perhaps you can share your opinion with him? Thanks, nadav 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help with Attachment Therapy

There is an extensive and ongoing dispute on the talk page for this article. One editor seems to feel very strongly about his POV and a number of others disagree. I think a cool head would be beneficial here (I know it would help me too). If you would look in here and comment or make a suggestion, that would be great. DPetersontalk 01:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is now heating up substantially with Personal Attacks and harrassment. If you can suggest a path for me to follow, I'd really appreciate it. DPetersontalk 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you aren't my friend?

RodentofDeath

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • C (I think)

The above IPs are vandalizing and making personal attacks that would appear to be in support of RodentofDeath. For example in this diff, there is a clear implication the vandalism and personal attacks are motivated by an ongoing content dispute. At the moment the target of the vandalism, Susanbryce (talk · contribs), is in a dispute with RodentofDeath.[1][2][3]. Susanbryce has almost exclusively edited the following articles: Angeles City (154 edits), Human trafficking in Angeles City (77 edits), Preda Foundation (44 edits) and Prostitution in the Philippines (33 edits), in these articles the only editor to revert war against her is RodentofDeath.[4][5][6][7] Addhoc 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely Some similarities in some aspects, but there are no matches and the IPs are on different networks. Voice-of-All 07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.



just to put your mind at ease i can tell you that all my posts are made from the same PC and i am almost always logged in. i did forget to log in and posted only once as far as i can remember. the IP was 58.69.50.128 so two of the IP addresses appear to be close to mine but this could be because they also live in angeles. i dont have any problem taking credit for things i post or edit. trying to hide isn't my style. the two IPs similar to mine blanked the page. i have never done that and never will. RodentofDeath 08:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I'm suggesting that you don't understand that there is absolutely nothing that violates our userpage policy about surrounding the "WikiProject Islam" box with gay pride flags. Please identify how gay pride flags surrounding the WikiProject Islam box constitutes "campaigning for or against anything or anyone" or attacking people." Xe wants to express that xe is proud to be a gay/lesbian Muslim. That it may offend some users who believe that there is something wrong with being gay and Muslim is of no relevance. We are not censored based on religious sensibilities. FCYTravis 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Karachi riots

Addhoc, I was wondering if I could have your opinion as an informal 3rd party. I authored the article about the recent 2007 Karachi riots a few days ago. I realized it was a hot button issue so I was very careful to cite my sources and mantain as objective opinion possible. However, due to the bloodshed and ideologies associated, there are many volunteer editors who have added unsourced and uncited opinions. I want to go in and reverse their edits, but knowing that this is sometimes how bad situations get worse, I wanted a 3rd party to perhaps offer some insight. I am also relatively new to Wikipedia. Any insight/advice would be appreciated. Chantoke 20:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll put the article on my watchlist. Addhoc 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)#Request for comments

Addhoc, I appreciate your comment about the complexity of the RFC. This is how I originally added it [8]. As you can see the original as posted is quite simple and clear.

I took this to the Admin Noticeboard because I feel User:David Lyons has made it a deliberate strategy to subvert this RFC by removing and rewriting my original comments and adding irrelevant points (CoI for example). When I tried to stop the rewriting he started an edit war about the meaning on the space where involved editors should post.

It's extremely frustrating to go through weeks just to get an answer to two simple questions: 1. are these claims exceptional? and 2. Do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP? I have reverted the text back to something close to the original. I would very much appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the RFC itself. Thank you. Sparkzilla 16:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, and for the link you found. Can I ask you to help clarify the issue a bit more? The item I am trying to find out about is -- do we need multiple sources for EVERY item on a BLP? For example, say someone is accused of being a murderer in source 1. Source 2 then reports that he is a murderer. We have multiple sources so we can say he is a murderer in WP. Now say that source 3 says he is a murderer that used a knife (and say that source 3 is the only one that says he used a knife). Is it acceptable to say that the murderer used a knife in WP, even though only a single source says so? If you can answer here and I will post the result over to the RFC, that would be great. Thank you! Sparkzilla 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll comment after I've thought it over. Addhoc 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a lot to ask, but if you could also give just a simple answer to this question I would be most grateful: Are the claims exceptional? Sparkzilla 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably borderline exceptional, I think WP:UNDUE applies here. Addhoc 09:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you give me some advice on how to improve the article so as to avoid undue weight issues? Sparkzilla 10:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, introduce more references from other news sources and then rewrite the section without focussing on any individual news item. Addhoc 10:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]