User talk:PhilKnight/Archive14

Intro section

Your version of the intro section is quite good and I support that we stick to that. However, supporting the efforts of an editor that has only "contributed" with a revert (which included a sarcastic comment), and a few comments on the discussion page where he call other editors of the article a few names is not very helpful. -- Karl Meier 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I've worked along side GraceNote on other articles. Addhoc 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Wow - thank you Addhoc, I wasn't expecting that! :- ) Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 09:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I don't expect the world to agree with me but at least there is someone there willing to actually help instead of destroying and talking to people like they were crap. I have had enough with these freaks on Wiki but thanks for the help nevertheless. Hammer1980 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism Re-Write

Neil made some significant changes to the working article on Matrixism at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. Thought you might want to take a look. 71.36.35.76 07:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

Hi This is Chris. Thanks for your response on the help desk. The problem is that I have told him to stop multiple time, yet he continue to threaten me with admin intervention. Are you an admin? If you are, please send a message his way to tell him to stop. Thanks. Chris 19:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, also look the talk page of User:soxrock. He is also warned by the same user. Thanks. Chris 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ksy92003 has a history of stubbornness and unwillingness to work with people, it seems like. See Talk:Chicago_White_Sox Chris 19:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not an admin. However, I would suggest that on your talk page you politely request that he doesn't post any more comments and then avoid posting on his talk page. Addhoc 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Hi. I have been having trouble with an editor called TheRingess, who has virtually been following me around and deleting my work in great chunks. Whenever I write an article, she turns up the next day and starts chopping it up. With my last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, I left it unfinished and put a notice on it to say it would be finished soon, and was still being written, and she turned up the next day and started chopping the article up before I had even finished it.

With the article before that, Shakti Mantras, she turned up the minute it was finished and listed it for deletion immediately, without the courtesy of telling me what the problems were.

She seems to be stalking me. She has turned up every time without exception (out of nearly two million articles). I am not the only one who has had problems with her. I got a message from Ganesham, who told me she watches people she doesn't like and chops up their work. He had to change his name to shake her off.

I can just change my name, of course, and probably will, but that doesn't stop the activities of this woman. Someone should have a talk with her. Please advise.

Sardaka 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to WP:UTM

Hi, About your edit to WP:UTM, removing the 4th level link to uw-v4, this was discussed quite a while ago, with regards to these type of warnings. In the end it came down to, if someone has received the full monty of warnings 1 - 3, and not initiated any discussions about the matter upon prompting, then this sort of edit, by forcing unsourced info upon the community without discussion and it is constantly being reverted did constitute as being vandalism. Cheers Khukri 14:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you issued any of these warnings, because the only editor I've given a level 3 warning doesn't deserve a block for his next unsourced inclusion of content. Possibly a user RfC could be considered, however to be honest even that would heavy-handed. Addhoc 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflictConsidering I wrote over half of these warning, I would say it gives me a reasonable inkling of how they are used. You have misread the situation, if you issued a lvl3 unsourced warning, after his next inclusion, he would receive a v4 and then a block, not a block straight after his lvl3 as you wrote. In any given situation someone should receive a lvl1 or 2, depending on if they'd done it previously, then a lvl3 unsourced, then a v4. So to be blocked they would have had to have repeated the same offence 4 times without discussing the issue. No matter that this completely falls foul of 3rr, even with the best intentions in the world, I'd have trouble AGF with someone who had inserted info 4 times into the same article without discussion. Khukri 15:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure from your response if you have actually ever used any of these warnings. Yep, ok you wrote them, however after I used them, I toned them down, because they seemed to be overkill. Could I suggest you have a look at User talk:Anishshah19 to see what I mean? Thanks, Addhoc 15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon no need to be facetious, of course I've used the warnings, anyone who is round here long enough uses them after a while admin or not. OK matter in hand, looks like your warnee has a done this at least once before, so I wouldn't have started with a level 1. Lvl2 on the other hand is quite explicit in it's instruction. Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you.. Now assuming they've ignored you, you given an explicit intruction not to insert this material with out discussing it. Then you issue lvl3, for ignoring your previous instruction, this is simple, you ignored the first warning, if you continue a block will be issued. After that, once issuing a v4, if you are ignored again then a block via WP:ANI would be the only option. I've reverted your change as well to unsourced3, changes like this should be discussed at WT:UTM. It is clear you disagree with me in this, so I have copied this discussion over to WT:UTM to gain greater input. Khukri 15:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that most editors have used {{uw-unsourced}}. Regarding the rest of your reply, I started with a level 2 warning. Also, you appear to be quoting the text I wrote in the current version of the level 2 warning {{uw-unsourced2}}. Finally, I obviously wasn't looking for your advice. Could you stop posting on my talk page? Thanks, Addhoc 15:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake with the unsourced2. Khukri 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Being Stalked

Sorry to pester you again, but I'm being stalked by an editor called TheRingess, who turns up every time I write an article and starts chopping it up. With the last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, she turned up and started chopping it up before I had even finished it!! I'm not the only one who has had trouble with her. I got a message from Ganesham, who had the same problems and had to change his name to shake off TheRingess.

Someone has to do something about this person.

Sardaka 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the page on my watchlist and help out with sourcing. Other editors are going to edit your work (sometimes mercilessly) however, it's the nature of this site. Addhoc 16:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Thanks for taking an interest in my problem. You're the first person who has.

The central issue is this: is it technically possibly for one editor to watch, or track, the activities of another?

If so, is this considered acceptable behaviour on the part of an editor?

If not, how do I stop her?

The way she keeps turning up immediately[ I write an article can't be just coincidence.

Sardaka

Obviously any editor could review the contributions of another editor. Addhoc 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for clearing that up. I guess what I'm getting at is that, in the case of TheRingess, it seems to have gone to far. She's in my hair all the time, even, as I said, before I've finished writing the article. I don't think this is reasonable behaviour. It's got to the point where, if I want to write an article, I have to ask myself how the Ringess will react to it. This is ridiculous. Wiki isn't meant to be like that. That kind of thing is a deterrent to contributors.

Can't someone tell her to pull her head in a bit? What she's doing isn't reasonable.

Sardaka 14:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to investigate these concerns regarding myself. I believe that your participation in these discussions will aid in bringing about a resolution, in a polite, respectful fashion consistent with Wikipedia's guiding principles. If this does result in a mediation case, I invite you to consider acting as the mediator. Take care. TheRingess (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of material

there is no rule requiring or even permitting the deletion of uncontroversial material from articles as unsourced without prior discussion on the talk page. Since you are an experienced editor, I am not leaving you a formal warning about "academic publishing". If you object to the content, say why on the talk page there. DGG 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was depopulating Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 and in my humble opinion, ignoring rules that get in the way of maintaining the encyclopedia is acceptable. Saying you aren't going to give me a warning isn't much better than me suggesting you deserve an {{uw-unsourced}} template for your good faith edit. Lastly, I've commented on the article talk page. Addhoc 06:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator?

Would you be willing to act as a mediator in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-13 Sardaka? TheRingess (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New References for Matrixism Article

Hi, Addhoc. I found another magazine article that talks about Matrixism. The problem is that the article is wrtitten in Dutch. It is a very short piece and I am hoping you can find some way to translate it. The article in question, in the Dutch version of Esquire magazine, can be found here http://www.esquire.nl/lifestyle/article.aspx?aid=149. Also I am not quite sure how to add this source to the working Matrixism article user:Xoloz/Matrixism. I hope you can help with this. 71.36.35.76 09:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, also the english language version is subscription only, but could still be cited: [1] Addhoc 10:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused, in terms of style, on how to site an article like [2]. If you could give me some guidance it would be most appreciated. 206.188.56.24 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source, this time a scholarly journal, that refers to Matrixism. On page 105 of Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, Volume 10, Issue 4, ISSN 1092-6690 (print), 1541-8480 (electronic), Copyright 2007 by The Regents of the University of California, Matrixism and its website's URL are listed among eight other esoteric new religions in an article titled "Perspective New New Religions: Revisiting a Concept" by J. Gordon Melton.

Again I am not sure how to style this citation consistent with Wikipedia standards. 206.188.56.88 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bricklayer

I started to describe the situation of bricklayers in germany in the article. In saw you worked on the article, so i thought may be you wanted to have a look. i do have links of references for the stuff i wrote, but for some reason i was not able to include them.

I thought may be you could help me with that.

Mediation for Sardaka's case

I've left a note on his talk page inviting him to participate so that we can bring this to a close in a timely fashion. Thanks again for agreeing to mediate.TheRingess (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sardaka's Case

TheRingess has put her comments on the case page. Should I add my comments now or will you let me know when you're ready, as I gather you'll be the mediator?

Sardaka 09:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you could go add your comments now, that would be appreciated. Thanks, Addhoc 11:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active user verification

Hello, PhilKnight. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 23:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, at the moment I'm working through Category:Articles lacking sources instead of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance, so I'll remove my name from the list. Addhoc 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request for Cello rock

Hi Addhoc, a few days ago I submitted a request for mediation for Cello rock. Unfortunately, I'll be taking a rather large Wikibreak (starting today), where I'll be out of the country for a bit over two months. I'm not quite sure what MedCab would like to do as far as the request is concerned, as I won't be able to actively participate in the mediation. My thoughts have already been listed on the article's talk page, but you may want to postpone the mediation. Thanks, CA387 17:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islamophobia.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

Kudos

Nice work on Ellisys. I'd written off the article as unsalvageable. Tlesher 21:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Medcab

I emailed my response to you. Geo. Talk to me 05:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussion? Right after I took the case my dialup connection timed out. Due to work I was unable to do anything for a couple hours. I had every intention of discussion. --Geo. Talk to me 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)rf[reply]
I'm very sorry Geo, however we don't want you taking cases. Addhoc 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would I have to do to be allowed to be a mediator? 4.246.153.13 08:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to concentrate on article writing, possibly even write a featured article, instead of making attempts to become an admin, join the MedCom, or create a proposal that puts you in charge. Addhoc 11:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE User Margaret Thatcher

I don't actually use that template any more (not since my RfA) - I created it ages ago. I'll userfy it, but it might be helpful to check "What links here" and notify anyone else who uses the template that it's been moved. Waltontalk 16:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 16:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to my userspace; the template wasn't actually being used on any userpages anyway. I wouldn't regard it as particularly "divisive and inflammatory", but it is redundant. Waltontalk 16:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Addhoc 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry, didnt mean to revert your talk page. Dunno how it happenned. Anyways, I was referring to the Angela Chow article. Dont worry, its been taken care of. --soum talk 12:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert War

Hi addhoc i am not going to revert war with you, but please look at the talk page of the Road to Audition and justify how this should not be a redirect. Outside sourcing is, as you well know, insufficient for retention per WP:EPISODE. Of course, if you think it best, we could move it to AfD for consensus. Thanks, Eusebeus 17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content isn't recommended by the episode guideline. Addhoc 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does that content justify those articles? Just having sources doesn't cut it; they have to actually mean something. Two of them contain minor awards that don't justify the articles. They need a lot more than that to exist. And the third is a rather minor review of the episode from nothing that notable. TTN 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see nothing that satisfies the guidelines laid out at WP:EPISODES. Eusebeus 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to be following the procedure detailed in WP:EPISODE#Dealing with problem articles. Addhoc 21:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor tag

Hey, I was looking at your mass removal of sections from Bergen County Academies. You might not want to tag those edits as minor since they are pretty significant changes. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be more careful in future. Addhoc 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]