User talk:PhilKnight/Archive3

Re: Responding

Sorry for the rather belated response - my internet connection was down for a few days. The case seems now to have become moot, but don't hesitate to contact me again if you have further inquiries. David Mestel(Talk) 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 18:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Fujimori

Thanks for your concern. I would gladly hear any non-partisan opinion regarding this subject. Messhermit 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc, I'd be happy to work with you on this if you want to make the necessary motions to accept the case. Thanks,--Amerique 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice you've already done that, thanks. How shall we move forward from here?--Amerique 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the case seems to address content issues primarily, ok to hold the mediation session on the talk page of the Fujimori article?--Amerique 07:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly... Addhoc 09:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm engaged as Messhermit's advocate.--Amerique 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't realise, the rules of the AMA stipulate you shouldn't advocate and mediate in the same case... Addhoc 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just talked with the Administrator that banned me. He said this:

You certainly were not vandalising the article, and you may continue with mediation and discussion on the talk page. You are only banned from editing the article itself. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that we can go on? I simply will not edit the article and leave everything to someone to carry the appropiate editions. Messhermit 00:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've asked Bdean whether he wants to continue. Addhoc 19:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab case Alberto Fujimori edits

Hello Addhoc, in the context of Messhermit being banned from editing the Alberto Fujimori article, I do intend to continue my involvement in the mediation process. Many thanks, User:Bdean1963, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll invite the editors who have become involved in the last few days and then we can start the mediation. Addhoc 11:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Addhoc for inviting the recent editors of the Alberto Fujimori to start the mediation process. All the best Bdean1963 19 September 2006
I'm taking a short Wikibreak. Therefore I am not going to participate in this mediation anymore. The neutrality of the article has being severely compromised and it would be futile for me to work. Anyways, thanks for all your effort. Messhermit 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc,

I'm pretty much playing it by ear. I closed the advocacy case following Messhermit's statement above, but am willing to engage as a mediator or as an instigator at large;-)--Amerique 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess I should have looked to see whether Messhermit's case was closed. Would you be interested in leading this mediation? Addhoc 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to me that there is an interestingly diplomatic exchange occuring on the article talk page, which Tony Sidaway has been participating in. I don't think the situation calls for more overt leadership at this point, but i would like to help facilitate the discussion. I'm not sure how to proceed with the MEDCAB case. The article itself could use someone's leadership in finding references, however.--Amerique 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure to what extent mediation is required at present.Addhoc 14:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I borrowed the layout of your talk page. Imitation, they say, is the highest form of praise.--Amerique 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re SpinyNorman's ArbCom case

Can't you contribute to the evidence page? After all, I think you're mediating related articles (e.g. the list of cars by fastest acceleration, etc.) and your input would be valuable not just on the talk page of the evidence page! Jsw663 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare authorship mediation

OK, so you're evidently the prosecuting council and I can see you're enjoying yourself by having a considerable input. But when does my defence council show up? Surely, this is not an Elizabethan-type trial run by the Privy Council who have predetermined the outcome. (Puzzle Master 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, could I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates... Addhoc 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'll defend myself. (Puzzle Master 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate the job you did on this mediation. I was on a Wikibreak throughout the discussions but as I read through them after the fact I was very impressed by your work. Keep fighting the good fight (or, err, mediating the good fight :-).--Alabamaboy 20:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Addhoc 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE

Thanks for pointing out the issues with the vandalism revert. I have gone through the references to make sure they are same as before Ruchiraw 12:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 14:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall portal

Hi - why did you remove Sussex from the related portals section? Just curious...take care Mammal4 08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mammal4, Cornwall has previously had independence, the other entities listed, Wales, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man and United Kingdom all similarly have previously been or currently are independent. Sussex by comparison hasn't been considered independent since the Norman invasion. Addhoc 09:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine - I don't really have a problem with that - probably best to leave you're reasons on the discusssion page though in case someone comes back and changes it again. You might want to look at the organisation of the England portal too, which lists Cornwall as a subportal of England, and Sussex as a related portal along with Scotland etc which I think is a bit mixed up. take care Mammal4 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Addhoc 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AK

Sorry, I found your proposal not to make changes only after I made changes. Sigitas 11:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Well, I havn't checked the talk page for a while, but right now the page is locked. The last time I checked, I was still being accused of POV pushing. So I wrote a lengthly explanation on why I removed a phrase... -- Selmo (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be easier to discuss the issue with an activist because whatever I say gets shot down. I don't think I can get anywhere if I'm going to be accused of things I didn't do on purpose. ---- Selmo (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Let's put the case on hold for now. -- Selmo (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Case

Thanks for taking my case. The dispute seems to be mostly resolved at this point, though. Philspice1 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Addhoc 16:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism article

Well, if you are going to delete it, you should then suggest ways on how to create a more comprehensive article on issues in Buddhism. Take care. Le Anh-Huy 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA / Too Cool

Re: AMA / Too Cool: I do wish to discontinue this debate and I agree that it certainly doesn't appear to be serving any useful purpose. --Geniac 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks anyways, whatever!!! Too Cool 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking on too much?

Hey Addhoc - becoming a mediator AND advocate? Are you aiming to be an administrator or more soon? :) Jsw663 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not just yet. Are you thinking of becoming an administrator in the near future? Addhoc 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well not really - don't have the time for that yet. But if you ARE thinking of becoming an admin then do notify me because I will support you. Jsw663 14:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, obviously I would also support your nomination. Addhoc 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Addhoc, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Newman entry: request for assistance

Dear Addhoc--Thanks for the edit to the Fred Newman entry. Unfortunately, the changes you made were reverted by a contributor who has consistently inserted misinformation, false information, and a fair amount of material, generally unsourced, which straddles the line of libelous. For the past week or so, I've been cleaing up the article, and supplying backing citations. The other author [journalist Dennis King, posting anonymously] has relented in each instance, as the corrections were valid (see Discussion section of the article for a history). However, on one section, Mr. King insists on reverting his formulation, to wit: "It's [the Newman founded youth program All Stars Project] board and staff are dominated by followers and therapy patients of Newman, some of whom live with Newman and Kurlander in a communal townhouse in Manhattan." It has repeatedly been pointed out to Mr. King that this disclosure of personal therapeutic choice has no place in an encyclopedia (not to mention whether or not the statement is true, i.e., is it communal, do such persons live there etc)> his justification that the information has been "widely reported" is disingenuous; it is not widely reported, and the citations he adds are either to his own website or to material for which he was the primary source. Arguing with this gentleman has reached a point of absurdity--your assistance, or any direction on how to proceed, is greatly apprecaited. I have attempted to delete the offending line with a note added that it has been refrred to mediation, but the reversions persist. Sorry for the length here--thanks for any helpyou can provide! BabyDweezil 03:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ongoing assistance BabyDweezil 05:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been protected. Were you notified of this, as the current mediator? BabyDweezil 04:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lenora Fulani: Request for assistance

Similar situation as with Newman article above. Same person, Dennis King, reverting back to his highly non NPOV version, and basically making the article a forum for his somewhat defamatory and getting a bit too obsessive bashing of his bete noir Fred Newman. You can refer to versions under my username and Mr King's (most recently posting as IP 208.222.71.17) and discussion page. Mr King is also seeming to solicit would be vandals to jump into the fray (see post Mr King from ex-iwp.org message board under his user name "wordsmith", some of which has been cited on the discussion page.) Thanks again! BabyDweezil 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Addhoc 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Thanks for filling out that form. Not only did I not understand what was asked, I see that it involves a tremendous amount of work on your part. It looks very thorough, objective and professional. It gives me new respect for wikipedia, I never dreamed that in all the chaos of wikipedia that something like that existed. Wow. Thanks --Historian2 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme cmdr

Not only was he removing sourced information, but a large amount of established material that effectively decimated the article. --InShaneee 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Addhoc 11:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Baker Eddy

Quimby is well-known as perhaps the predecessor to Eddy. Many people think she lifted a major part of her teachings from Quimby before he died. Some people dispute that. It's a source of controversy in the church and for her personally. He is quite relevant to her early career. In fact, perhaps the single, most relevant figure. Wjhonson 13:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article says "In the 1860s she began to explore faith healing and associated with Phineas Quimby. His influence on her is disputed; the Christian Science Church maintains she thought highly of him personally but ultimately disavowed his technique as more mesmerism-based than Christian. However, there are many passages in her work "Science and Health" that mirror passages in Quimby's writings." However, I'm not disputing the article content. According to WP:EL, for a link to be included it has to provide relevant information about the subject. The Quimby link doesn't appear to provide any further information about Mary Baker Eddy and in this context should be removed. Addhoc 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a biographical point-of-view, I think providing a link to a site which discusses more in-depth her predecessor or who she got her ideas from (possibly) is relevant to her own article. It's not only relevant to his article, since part of her biography discusses her ideas, and if they came from him, then it's relevant to have a link to details about him that may not be on his wikipedia article itself. It is, at the least, a rational argument, and thus shouldn't be removed as if there was no justification whatsoever. Thank you for your time. Wjhonson 18:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that our polite disagreement is about content as opposed to "blanking" or "spamming". Unless a consensus develops, I don't intend to revert your edit. Thanks, also. Addhoc 21:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I can chime in here (and I don't feel strongly about this) there's already a link to the Wikipedia article on Phineas Quimby in the first paragraph. The external link is also provided from that page. I'm not sure what the official Wikipedia style position is on redundant links, but from a minimalist position less is better. (For the record I agree that some reference to Phineas Quimby is appropriate. His relationship to Mary Baker Eddy is important to an understanding of the roots of Christian Science.) Digitalican 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article barnstar

Thank's a lot for the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. --Ricardo Carneiro Pires 14:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Loren Cunningham

I didn't see anything on the article to indicate that the article was in mediation or that it should be edited in anything other than the normal manner. Nareek 12:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, I have replied on the talk page, thanks, Addhoc 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a problem here? Nareek 18:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not hugely, I doubt the IP is David Loren Cunningham, although could be an intern or something. You've done enough to demonstrate their ideas should carry less weight than other editors. However, I don't consider his or her involvement to be very disruptive. Addhoc 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this misplaced on AMA Alerts of all places...

I just got your message

Thankyou very much for your message, regarding advocay upon MARWAT. I am replying you late, as I wason bed due to sickness. I am happy and glad, after reading your profile, that such noble person is agoing to advocate the matter.

Let me know, what to do next? Thanks

A M. Khan 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how or why he stuck it in to AMA Alerts, but I figured that you'd like to get it (albeit a bit late). :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 03:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MC 2006-09-27 Request

Could be Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-27 External Link Discrimination considered closed? The user has stopped spamming his links throughout Wikipedia and hasn't reappeared. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! Addhoc 16:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CS Lewis Request

Hello. I would like to request your assistance in dealing with a matter over CS Lewis. I have proposed a critics section that allows a critique of his philosophy and most others agree to this idea, however they seem to only agree to information that does not truly conflict with Lewis' views... I have offered quotes from Einstein, a Professor from New York, and Sigmund Freud and one individual claimed they were not original research. I would to resolve this duspute for when I asked for suggestions on how to change things none replied. If it is possible to have a page locked temporarily it would be most beneficial, individuals continually delete information they simply do not like. 74.129.230.61 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can't normally request that your version in an edit war is protected, requests at WP:RFPP are merely for pages to be protected. Regarding the material you are trying to introduce "Lewis anomalous philosophy involving the divine command theory, or the idea that morals must come from an authority or God, is critiqued by Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill", I would comment this ananlysis requires a citation to a reliably published secondary reference that you haven't yet provided. In essence, the entire argument must have been expressed previously in a reliably published work. Addhoc 12:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the quotation on creationism

Hi, Addhoc. I replied to your comments at my user talk page. (PS.: I may have sounded a little too hash in my last edit summary at creationism, sorry). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also I was completely wrong about you deleting sources. Addhoc 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag on Traffic control

Actually, this merge thing has been hanging around since May this year. Since nothing has happened except me, and there is no-one in favour, I formally propose that the merge tags be removed. Gordon | Talk, 11 October 2006 @11:12 UTC

I agree. Addhoc 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]