User talk:PhilKnight/Archive6

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I've been getting bored with dealing with copyvios, and I was looking for a new project. . . I think I'll go back to missing articles again. Have a great weekend! – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen the case?

I'm afraid that in the case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-28 You Are What You Eat (UK TV Show) the annoymous user is back and keeps restoring the section without sources and they are just getting on my nerves. If you could reopen the case I'd be thankful, but at this point I'm not sure what can be done apart from constant reverting... Tartan 12:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. We could set up a straw poll to emphasise there is a consensus. Also I guess we should explain policies such as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Addhoc 12:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad of anything you can do, as I really don't know how to deal with this person anymore. Tartan 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

My brand-spankin' new mop!
My brand-spankin' new mop!

My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well
(Her name is Vera)

I appreciate
The support you have shown me
(I hope I don't suck)

Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line
(damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Barnstar

It is very much appreciated. Thanks! :) Wikiwoohoo 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Addhoc, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

What really gets me is how both you and Muero/you are following me around, looking to edit my edits, or complain about them. Is it a coincidece that days after I tell Muero that if he continues to harrass me by looking at all my edits and trying his best to get them removed, I will report him, you come along and fill his place? This is what's leading me to belive that you're the same person, or friends outside of Wikipedia. If you're his "advocate", does that mean that you should take part in the kind of activity that is getting me so frustrated with him? Obviously, there is some alterior motive here. 68.149.157.248 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is that you have been using sockpuppets in a fraudulent manner. Accordingly, I would suggest your recent accusations could be interpreted as the defense mechanism of psychological projection. Addhoc 10:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I almost fell off my chair laughing. There's a difference between using prior knowledge to defend your argument (what I did saying you are are at a lower stage of moral reasoning according to Kohlberg), and actively searching out theories to make yourself sound intelligent. That's pretty sad/pathetic, and shows an obvious inferiority complex. Also, I didn't use sockpuppets; that was my friend backing me up on the medalbox argument. I make edits at his house regularly, and forgot to sign in once (hemce why a lot of his edits are to Russian pages) 68.149.157.248 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi Addhoc, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from this page

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history . Thanks. 68.149.157.248 01:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I concur there have been occasions whem I've stretched WP:REFACTOR somewhat. Addhoc 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Ovechkin article

- what do you suppose we should do about it? after all, he did add three entire letters! that *******. let's spend hours and hours writing up complaints, instead of living in the real world. kthxbye! - - Kohlberg's stages of moral development
- Don't feel too bad though. I just learned this week about good ol' Kohlberg, and apparently, 90% of people never make it past stage 4 (the stage you and Muero are in). Jaskaramdeep 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop circles

Hi, if someone indicates that a statement is original research, that implies the analysis is an unpublished argument, it doesn't imply the argument is false. Thanks, Addhoc 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my removing the tag was that citations for the argument are given later in the article. Michaelbusch 23:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:My Question

Ouch. Wasn't aware of that. Thanks a lot for the message; I can only apologize on behalf of that user. This type of thing really stirs up stress. DoomsDay349 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for helping out MedCabal. We'd be drowning without you. --Ideogram 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music

Hi Addhoc. I remember replying to your email regarding Carnatic music mediation. Did you not get it? If so, it might have gone into your spam folder. Or are you referring to lack of response from the others here? I'd really like to have someone mediate the case. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, entirely my fault - I've re-opened the case... Addhoc 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Tourism

Thanks for writing. But Sly Traveler is not a commerical link. I don't think you've been fair with me.
Daniel E. Knodel, M.A. 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the lovely Barnstar. I wish I could say the pentagram kept evil spirits away. — edgarde 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report Devalover/KyndFellow

As a long-term participant in the current Talk:Sex_tourism controversy, you are invited to comment in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Devalover. — edgarde 06:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfox

Please reopen - the article is not advancing due to this dispute. Widefox 11:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've re-opened the case. Addhoc 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addhoc, can you refer me to any page that points out how cases are handled and what methods are used to solve disputes? Kilz 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Addhoc 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA case

Regarding Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Chondrite: Just before User:Simonapro was indef blocked Wp:an/I#User:Simonapro, the user filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chondrite. See also WP:PAIN#Simonapro_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. -- Chondrite 08:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, obviously very pleased about the indefinite block and I've requested the sockpuppet report should be archived. Addhoc 11:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments at the sockpuppet report. If Simonapro gets unblocked and continues to be disruptive, I intend to proceed with WP:RFC/USER. But since Simonapro does not (at this time) seem interested in requesting to be unblocked, I guess you can close the AMA case. Thanks again, Chondrite 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more question. It looks like the evidence page Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chondrite is an orphan, the case does not show up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#Open cases. Should anything be done about that? Thanks, Chondrite 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets and then delisted the evidence page. In the context of Simonapro's indefinite block, I don't think listing an evidence page that doesn't provide any diffs achieves anything. Addhoc 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that. Thanks again, Chondrite 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I appreciate your being careful with Dalit Freedom Network. It is always important to be precise. Just to let you know that the comments of User:Hclintontx in the mediation cabal page are a typical example of DFN's intolerant,racist, and fundamentalist Bible-Thumping rhetoric (they also have connections to the terrorist group National Liberation Front of Tripura, a fact which I obtained from a Zee-TV program about them, which I am working on sources for the wikipedia article). This user is a suspected sockpuppeteer with another user who has been editing the DFN article abusively. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Hclintontx. Thanks and keep looking at the article for any errors etc. You have done a great job so far. Hkelkar 12:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for your improvement of the article. Addhoc 12:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ama case

I lost contact... in the end, he looks a strange mix of good contributor and diehard of meaningless fightings. Ciao and thanks for attention. --Attilios 12:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music

Thanks for adding the tags that you did at Talk:Carnatic music, that article is indeed subject to a lot of heated arguments recently.

Are you an admin? Can you clarify a few things at Talk:Carnatic music regarding the article in question? Clarification for the following is requested, in the article talk page only please:

1. Can one editor of the article in question, insert an external link to a website owned by another editor of the same article? Would this constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies?

2. Can one editor claim that images of carnatic singers is irrelevant to the article and thereby remove all existing images when others protest his actions?

3. The term Carnatic Music is called "karnataka sangeetham" in India, and this term is in the sanskrit language. India has other languages which are also used in Carnatic music compositions. Am I right therefore in suggesting that only the sanskrit font is sufficient since the relevant term is in sanskrit, and to avoid throwing in the same term in all language scripts? One user says if all languages are not mentioned, no language should be mentioned. I think since its a sanskrit term, sanskrit alone can be mentioned.

Thanks for taking a proactive interest in the Carnatic music article. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not an admin, however I hopefully could be of some assistance...
1. The guidelines in question are WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:EL, the advice given is as follows: "if it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."
2. Images shouldn't be removed in this manner according to WP:IMAGE, I have left a note on the talk page concerning this.
3. Not sure, I think just mentioning in Sanskrit would usually be ok. I've noticed some of the Buddhist articles give Sanskrit and Pali, while most of the other India articles usually just mention the Sanskrit.
Addhoc 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. Please see my response to the issue of the link you've removed, at Talk:Carnatic music. I think you removed the link in error thinking either that: 1. It is a forum website, or
2. Its being used as a reference source, or
3. It being my website, I put the link there, or
4. It is unreliable or non-genuine or illegal or commercial or propogandic.

None of the above 4 are true or valid. See my explanation in the article's talk page. User:Venu62 appears to have something against me personally, and Sundar is his ever abiding friend. I guess you will see this objectively and rationally, and hear out what I have to say. Its not that I'm pushing for my website's link. Its just that I dont want to emphasize "substance over form". Thanks. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult Mediation needs new Mediator

Hi, Addhoc, User:Kylu mentioned you as someone who might be willing to help with a mediation that has stalled out amid much conflict, zero progress, and an absent mediator.

What do you think? At this point one person involved (Matisse) is saying they are too frustrated to continue, but I think the rest of the considerable number of people involved in this are committed to seeing it go forward in some form or another. If nothing else, a number of people are needing some kind of resolution in this matter. Thanks for considering this. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kathryn, thanks for letting me know, however I endorsed an opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, so I probably have to recuse... Addhoc 11:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you possibly recommend someone else to mediate? Also, I think Matisse desperately needs an advocate in this situation. The former mediator of the case seems to be openly siding with 999 against Matisse, posting on his talk page that maybe he should ban her (User talk:999#Matisse). Rather than calming down, the situation seems to be getting worse. (see also User_talk:Kathryn NicDhàna#question about 999 and stalking) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ideogram available to mediate? Also, I'll leave a note on Mattisse's talk page extolling the virtues of the AMA. Thanks for keeping me informed... Addhoc 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your message

Thank you for your suggestion. I will think about it as I don't know what it is. I have been having trouble for months with these people harassing and stalking me and nothing has been able to stop it. I spend all my time defending myself. And to have the mediator of the Mediation Cable be seeking to block me, I think shows that this cannot be stopped.

One day alone there were seven ANI complainst against me by these same people. They stalk me, tag my articles, etc.

Right under your message to me was this:

My personal advice to Mattisse is to drop the bone. If there is something wrong with the citations she disagrees with, let others fix it. Her methods and ways of communicating are extremely contentious and do more harm than good. -999 (Talk) 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth threatening message from User:999 today.

They ran off User:Timmy12 most recently and countless others. Perhaps if you would help me do it. I do not understand things very well around here. I am not a tehnical person. I get confused easily. I am not up to do more of this. I exhaust myself writing explanations constantly but that does not work against strong arm tactics. I don't know what to do. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, please look up the word "threat" in the dictionary. My message was in no way threatening, and I don't appreciate you mischaracterizing it as such. -999 (Talk) 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 999, could I request that you don't post on my talk page. Thanks! Addhoc 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what it is like. He follows me around on other pages and interjexts. I completed what you suggested but apparently User:Geo.plrd runs it and I immediately got sent to his page. So I cancelled out even though a page got set up for me. Now I am afraid it will be worse for me. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, Geo doesn't run the AMA. Addhoc 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got sent to his page, maybe originally because I tagged his name on the end of the list of people I was disputing. So I took his name off, but his name had turned into "Welcome". I can try it again, but why did that happen then? I don't understand. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is he involved in it and perhaps today is his day, or something? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to go ahead and file again but I can't figure out how to get there. I don't know where the link is. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Day

Hi. I noticed you were involved in mediation on the Sweetest Day article. Things seem to have stirred up again [1], in case you need to get involved again. Not a dog 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know... Addhoc 11:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

da Vinci Barnstar

The Vitruvian Man, Leonardo's study of the proportions of the human body.
The da Vinci Barnstar
For your exceptional patience in dealing with everyone involved in mediation and willingness to continue assisting users with disputes in a neutral, yet attentive and caring manner, I award you the da Vinci Barnstar. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



We're glad you're with us! :) ~Kylu (u|t) 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thnak you

I'm glad it's you as my advocate. Maybe you can help me learn to avoid these problems. I need to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for taking the case :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]