User talk:PhilKnight/Archive21

Nu skool breaks

I was about to undelete this article too, looking at the history it was a real artice before vandalism was inserted. –– Lid(Talk) 00:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good call. Addhoc 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Howdy Addhoc, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

I keep ending up here... What is this? I had just criticized the bot for reporting someone that had made all of one edit since 11 days prior when it was making nothing but good edits. Then I see it is blocked anyway and lo and behold it's you. What is the purpose of blocking an IP that has a mixed history at worst and that had one warning in the previous 7 weeks? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U

A page to which you have significant contributions, RfC/U, is up for deletion here. -- Jreferee t/c 06:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Addhoc, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-24 Birmingham pub bombings

You have just archived the opening page of the above - the case is still open at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion. Aatomic1 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aatomic1, I've reopened the case - thanks for explaining.--Addhoc (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Please Help, could you please provide some input here directly. The outcome of the mediation was certainly not clear (and has been amended since your last edit). I do not care for myself but this interpretation of the mediation is not fair on others who have their spent time discussing this matter to have all that trampled on. Aatomic1 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this to Admin's talk. Aatomic1 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail

Please check your mail. Thanks! — Sebastian 19:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)

RFC discussion of User:RodentofDeath

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RodentofDeath (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. -- edg ☺ ☭ 15:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. Addhoc (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The request has not yet been submitted, pending Users certifying the basis for this dispute. I would appreciate any suggestions you have. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've certified the dispute and listed the RfC. Addhoc (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! / edg ☺ ☭ 15:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA


Classification of admins

Hi Addhoc. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case reply

I appreciate your comment. I think in light of the incivility of a particular editor, it would be best to go to formal mediation if that is required to resolve the disputes in this article. If I had been the mediator, this editor would have been set straight quickly or banned from the mediation quickly.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott5114's RFA

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RFA nomination. I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your potential support in the future. Regards, —Scott5114↗ 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

One of my favorite places Dear PhilKnight,

Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SebastianHelm's tantrum

I have put some comments on the MedCab page. I think he has distored the facts and wrong-targeted you. Actually, this mediation went sour when User:Misou repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL. It would have been irrelevant if Leonmon was absent had Misou not disrupted the mediation.--Fahrenheit451 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fahrenheit451, thanks for your comments. Addhoc 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying my coment to Sebastian here. I hope it helps to sort out this strange situation:"User:SebastianHelm, perhaps we are operating off of different definitions of "Abandon". The one I use is: "To give up to another's control or mercy". You may be thinking in terms of "forsake or desert". Indeed, User:Misou disrupted the mediation with repeated incivility. By Leonmon not intervening, he effectively gave up the mediation to another's control. No evidence Leonmon deserted the mediation, but perhaps we are using the same word for different actions.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

69.122.155.216

[User:69.122.155.216] is back again after a one month block issued by you (thank you) and has returned to the exact same type of vandalism again. JPG-GR 23:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculositis

I tried that already. He just changed it back. If he's not going to take the clue...

It is nonsense anyway; there's no such disease. HalfShadow (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HalfShadow, I've given him a final warning. Addhoc (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Re: Ping. Active sonar ("The Hunt For Red October" "Captain Ramius: Re-verify our range to target... one ping only."). Ping is also the name of an internet tool. It has now been 13 days since I asked for mediation and more than a week since the last posting to the mediation page. That was my way of asking if the mediator was still around and what is going on without me going into verbose mode. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather that you had not closed the mediation! My ping was because I thought that it was more than time that mediation started. As that was the first mediation I had been involved in, can one open another on the same subject and hope to get a more involved mediator or should one escalate to the next level as the dispute is going nowhere fast? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the options are to either revert to a version prior to the mediator's acceptance, file a new request, or consider formal mediation.--Addhoc (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indef block of Premabhay (talk · contribs)

Indef? Really? A new user tries to add information. They are reverted and left spam warnings, then blocked. Fair enough, the link wasn't appropriate and they warred over its inclusion. When the block expires, they take their case to the talk page...and get blocked for it. Where is the part where the user is made aware of Wikipedia's policies? How is it that they should know that posting the link and making an argument for including the information would lead to another block? --Onorem♠Dil 14:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was a mistake. I've apologised to the editor. Addhoc 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't know if they'll stop once it's explained to them why the comments and link are inappropriate, but I'd at least like to see them given a chance. Thanks again for changing your mind. --Onorem♠Dil 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User :202.208.141.223

Thanks for extending the block on this user. I'm kinda new. How did they get around the 24 hour block? joshschr (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshschr, blocked accounts are normally still allowed to edit their user talk pages, in order to allow the user to appeal the block. However, in this case, the user was clearly abusing this privilege, so I protected the talk page. Addhoc 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh. I was leaving his talk page alone except for warnings. It was becoming time-consuming keeping up with the vandalism. Thanks again. joshschr (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands

No objection to closing it. Justin talk 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Edit War

  • the user refuses to accept that the creator/exe producer of las vegas gary scott thompson has stated in interviews last month that 1. the episodes of the show will be reordered that originally planned. This is commonly done by producers and tv executives. 2. the list on what was shown episode "98" listed in the episodes guide is really going to be 99. The user believed that the show is in hiatius and will be showing repeats. This is infact NOT true. 3. Gary Scott Thompson stated that wrtiers strike has caused them to make a few of the other episodes quicker so there will be NEW episodes in janurary at least, before they truly start air repeats for a while until the end of the strike. The user's claim about the hiatus is because of the strike which is wrong, because he lists a xmas special airing at its regular time. Well duh every channel during the holidays doesn't show the regular episodes as of coming week. 4. the user is using IMDB as a source for the episode correctin order. The problem is IMDB IS NEVER TRUELY CORRECT. there are movies listed that that are suppose come out, when in fact they were pushed back than the date listed. Example for the show CANE episodes on IMDB they showed the exile episode as airing in janurary, it aired about 2-3 weeks ago. IMDB is not listed in order they studios state its the order "users" get from production. Production orders are NEVER FINAL ERRORS. Therefore i was changing the order to the proper order because of what gary scott thompson says. And its pretty hard to cite television interviews on here, since there is no real format for listing a show that is shown DAILY about stars and producers. So i am not really starting a war he is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.171.147 (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

world communism

Why should we not delete it when it's already listed under communism, several times within the article? RYNORT 22:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RYNORT, I removed the speedy delete tag, because the article can't be deleted under the WP:SPEEDY criteria. However, the article can be changed into a redirect to communism, if a consensus of editors agree. Addhoc (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


question

If there was an article written about somebody, and the article was deleted do you still leave it there as a source? Or do you take it off and put citation needed? It was on a biography page.RYNORT 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]