How do I expand or resource the article?--Mariofan90 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that you research the subject a little more first - you could start by looking at this search result Addhoc 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation is not stalled; we had one mediator (Selket) who came in, looked around & then did nothing, withdrawing as soon as as his RfA passed! Now another one has recently come in, but all I have seen from him is a request to confirm the parties will accept him. Setting up your own seperate article prejudices the issue completely. Johnbod 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I didn't realise that a new mediator was interested. Addhoc 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- here, though I have heard notrhing since. Johnbod 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rodent's on a tear in Angeles City. I'm considering a mediation but it's not really my issue. Any suggestions, and would you like to be involved in the mediation? / edgarde 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if interested on WP:ANI#RodentofDeath_revert_warring_in_Angeles_City / edgarde 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I couldn't mediate because I was previously involved, however I'll comment. Addhoc 08:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove your unfounded accusations about conding pedophilia on the Rfc page, personal attacks are as you know, not allowed on wikipedia. Thanks for your cooperation. V.☢.B 12:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you have a look at WP:SPADE. Addhoc 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My statement remains unchanged. V.☢.B 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a courtesy notice, this issue is now being discussed on WP:AN/I - see here. MastCell Talk 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:More sources is under discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --After Midnight 0001 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to look at some of the links provided by Shotwell in his RfC and by me on the discussion page. I don't know anything about the paedophilia dispute, but I do know that on attachment therapy and related issues Dpeterson has been relentlessly pushing a POV (against ACT and for DDP). None of the complainants have a particular view. We just want the page to be accurate. StokerAce 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see, but in this case, the user in question has been deliberately misleading people successfully (single use accounts, etc.), and I felt that was reasonable to draw attention to, as an exceptional case. Clavecin 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I went back and deleted the comment from the talk pages of those users, except one who had already replied. I should perhaps have limited it to the users who were obviously misled by the user in question, but then again, the person who reviews the debate will be able to see this, so my canvassing those users as I did was perhaps a bit redundant and unnecessary; I will not do this again. Clavecin 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this. It seems very odd behaviour on the part of a member of the Mediation cabal to attempt to pre-empt the result of a mediation you are not involved in! Johnbod 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Addhoc. I don't see the pedophilia connection [1]. Could you provide an explanation, diff or section? Maypole 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Maypole, when I made the comment Jim Burton had endorsed the RfC; he has now been indefinetly blocked and his name was removed. However, Voice of Britain endorsement is still there, and he has been blocked for a week for revert warring on the Child sexual abuse article. Addhoc 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.
The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you deleted half the bloody article, and yes I do consider that vandalism. Watch yourself. And I don't think that there's a high chance of my being blocked, what with this occuring quite a while ago. Anyway, I'm checking in on the decade nostalgia page as I'm going to evaluate your latest edits. I'm also adding you to my watchlist. --Paaerduag 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For your informaion: Jimbo Wales wrote:
| “
|
In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.
I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious.
Be bold. :) [2]
|
”
|
- Addhoc 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you did what you did without any form of consensus. why not ask the editors for their views about what you were going to do? It was ages ago anyway; get over yourself. And your threats mean nothing to me. --Paaerduag 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats fine. I'm merely indicating that I'm going to remove the unsourced material that has been tagged. Addhoc 11:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding that reference to Across Five Aprils, it doesn't have much relevence at all to where you're putting it. And no, I don't own the article, but I'm in the band and I really don't want that on there... thanks.
--Themoonisdown09 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for responding. Essentially articles should be sourced, however this reference doesn't have to be included, provided others are. I've added a report to the Conflict of interest noticeboard requesting advice on how to proceed from here. Addhoc 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration case
You might want to take a look at an Arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Please add any evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence
Hi, that image was marked as having no source because WP:FUC criterion 10a requires that not just the source, but the copyright holder require attribution. The copyright holder is unknown, so the no source tag should be replaced and the image eventually deleted if this information cannot be found out. (H) 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see now you added "publishers of the album - Epic Records, JDub Records, Or Music". Thank you, ignore my previous comment. (H) 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Addhoc, I already blocked him for one week about an hour or so ago. I'm just multi-tasking at the moment and am in the process of leaving him a message and then I was going to come over here and tell you as well. Unforunately his rampant and melodramatic incivility has been an ongoing problem since he first started editing here. Take care, Sarah 13:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Addhoc 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the meaning of Vandalism, Original research and Citing Source ? Please understanding it aand then warn others. Original vandalism was done by you on the pages of Legal status of Jainism.
There is an wilfull attempt to subvert the truth on these pages in the name of "Unsourced section" and "original research". Bal Patil Court Judgement has been modified to advocate a NPOV and other court Judgement that proves Jainism as distinct judgement - Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir - has been purposely deleted. I fail to understand why ? Where is the question of Original Research for court Judgement which are public documents. Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a Original research ? Then delete all Judgements from Wiki.--Anish Shah 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC
- In the above you said "Is a court verdict delivered by a Judge a original research?" The answer is the court judgement is a primary source. My concern is that you are removing all the secondary sources and only using primary sources. Also, I have stylistic concerns - I suggest you have a look at WP:LEAD, for example. I've looked at some of your other contributions and you are clearly a good faith editor. Your edits to ahimsa were impressive, for example. In this context, I've struck through some of the above comments. I hope we can resolve this and find a compromise soon. Addhoc 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you deleted a section of Battlefield 2 that was encyclopedic. It has been reverted. I don't see a discussion about this, but I may have overlooked. WinterSpw 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you have a look at WP:UNENC. Addhoc 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on that one :), I wonder if we should put {{db-empty}} when one gets finished? Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I guess we probably should. Addhoc 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I dropped a tag on it, I guess we will see what happens. Jeepday (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have blanked out many pages without any valid reasoning, and I have already reverted all the changes on Kumi Koda's song pages (all of which I am watching), but I realise that you have done the same to many other pages. That is a massive amount of information lost, and I personally think that such action cannot be carried out without a consensous. Thus, kindly justify your action. I might be wrong, there might be some new policy somewhere, if so, kindly indicate. — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 02:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, all the redirected articles were singles or albums by Koda. The verifiability policy states that if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and the articles have been tagged for lacking any references for over a year. Addhoc 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I can see what you're trying to say, but please leave the pages as they are now. I seriously think the pages cannot be done away with, so I'll try to find sources where they are needed. (I've also consulted other members for help.) On the other hand, I also hope you can be slightly more flexible in the sense that it's a fact that there isn't a great need for lots of sources on album and single pages, so I'd only put in references where they are strictly necessary. Please help out too if you can, instead of purely eliminating the pages. Thanks in advance for your help and understanding. — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, some pages aren't tagged for a year at all. For example, the Yume no Uta/Futari De page wasn't even created until October 2006, but the tag says it was tagged since May 2006 (read the history, I'm not kidding you). As a matter of fact, that article was tagged only on May 2007. — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 13:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected the other tags. Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a respondent, I wonder if you could have a look at this and give me your comments [3]. Thank you. Sparkzilla 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a "leave me alone" stance here with NE2. I'm not going to let users like him prevent me from improving the encyclopedia. And I respect your opinion on my my RFA. Obviously, I'd suggest you reconsider. There are trolls that are all over the place like him, that shouldn't drive respectable people like you and me away. Have a nice day. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I consider NE2 to be a productive editor, who has made a signifcant contribution to the project. Ok, I disagree with NE2 over policy, however I wouldn't call any good faith editor a troll. Addhoc 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I ask out of him is to work with other users by building consensus. How hard is that? I know he's aware of the policies, but he can't get anywhere by bullying others with guidelines. That said, I respect your opinion on my RFA, and whether I become an admin or not, I will still take the constructive criticism in accordance. --Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit to Affection (Kumi Koda album) because you had removed all of the content, not just the unsourced part, you didn't explain why you did it, and you did it without first gaining consensus. This is close to blanking vandalism. (Also, changing the article into a redirect caused the links to it in the article Kumi Koda to redirect back to that same article.) — A.M. 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing unsourced (as it was then) tagged content isn't vandalism or close to vandalism. I suggest you have a look at the verifiability policy. Addhoc 22:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should have explained in the edit summary. Also, what part of the article is "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"? — A.M. 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the same policy, "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". That said, I'm pleased you have added further references to the article. Addhoc 09:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure that's a secondary source to be honest, a primary source is much better than that source for multiple reasons (we're not here to help companies make money, you know?) Matthew 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A newspaper article is a secondary source. Could I suggest you read the verifiability policy? Addhoc 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A news paper article can be a secondary sources (but isn't always...), I'm slightly apprehensive that the article is a valid secondary source (primarily because I cannot verify it). See WP:NOR: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source", it's not likely to be challenged (and I'd put the down to principally it citing itself to the primary source, which in this case is the most reliable). Also, please note that I'm challenging the OCRegister source you gave, so you should not re-introduce it. Have a good morning, Matthew 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your rewrite was helpful, and I think you for that. But I would rather risk having that whole section removed rather than go along with the pieces you removed. But I will think about it first, and I might feel differently tomorrow. Kwork 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I fully understand. Should I reintroduce the original research tag? Addhoc 00:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will look at it tomorrow, and decide then. I won't fall apart if you put the tag back. Your moving the references to the bottom does make the article easier to read. Thanks. Kwork 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have not quite made up my mind, but the choice seems to be between going along with your rewrite of that section of the article (which I know was well meant, and involved an investment of your time), or its removal. My two months involvement with the Wikipedia way of doing things has been more than enough. As I posted in the article's discussion section previously: Unlike the rules that apply in the rest of the world, Wikipedia institutionalizes the practice of intellectual rape. Kwork 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have placed this also on the article's discussion page:
- THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE. The question of Alice Bailey's antisemitism is of importance for two reasons. The first is that bias and animosity against a religious group calls into question the claims for the spirituality and the basic goodness of her teaching. The second is that, if it can be established that the statements about the Jews in her books are actually based on European stereotypes, it will call into question her claims that the books were dictated to her by a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom and would indicate, instead, that it was the product of her own mind. The purpose of my presenting the issue in the form that I have, by comparing her statements with typical antisemitic European stereotypes, was to highlight the second as well as the first issue.
- I think that SqueakBox and Addhoc are incorrect to call this original research. However, I would not deny that it represents a point of view. Because Addhoc's editing eliminated the comparisons that I think are essential to my point, I am restoring that section of the article to its original form. Nevertheless, I am certainly willing to make changes to resolve any problems that are pointed out to me. Kwork 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
|
You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.
Regards, WilyD
|
