User talk:PhilKnight/Archive8

LTTE mediation

Mediation on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam will resume in two days. You had made some good contributions there before, so please consider signing up under "Other parties". — Sebastian 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wanting a response of some sort

Is it possible to get any response from you either to my email to you or to my posts on you page on Wikipedia?

Did I rashly break an unforgivable rule? Or were you my Advocate only because others involved with Starwood like Katharine asked you to be and not really for me as a person or to help me learn to deal with Wikipedia better? Or is it because when Ars Scriptor emailed you about me, he said something that resulted in you deciding that I was evil and to ignore me? Or do you just not like me?

It's a strange be ignored by you and to feel I don't exist here. I'm thinking that after the end of the year I will leave Wikipedia if what is happening does not become more transparent to me. If a person such as you feels contaminated by me then I ought not to be here. One more month -- that will make 8 months on Wikipedia for me total aad long enough to tell if there is any chance for me here.

Again, I apologise if I have alienated you or hurt your feelings or done something unforgivable. I am so sorry. Sincerely, Mattisse 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, sorry for not replying earlier, I was on holiday. At the moment, there appears to be some problem with my bowser. Accordingly, I can't really be anybody's advocate until I get it fixed. Sorry about that... Addhoc 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Addhoc, can you not answer my emails sent to you while you were my Advocate? There were two while you were my Advocate that you ignored. You could answer those, could you not? Sincerely, Mattisse 16:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I'm not sure which emails you are talking about. My understanding is that I answered your questions while I was advocating on your behalf. Addhoc 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Addhoc, I am talking about the three emails I sent you after you agreed we should communicate by email, two while you were still my Advocate. Also the questions I posted to you that you did not answer. It feels strange to be ignored by your own Advocate! I expected an Advocate to interact with me and explain things I did not understand. I was not aware that your role was to keep a big distance from me. But it doesn't matter now and I do appreciate what you did do. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armia Krajowa

Hello! If I remember correctly you was mediator of article Armia Krajowa. When you have more time could you please, provide a sign on article`s talk page, because I would like to ask some issues involving neutral editor. Cheers, M.K. 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

altho you said you cannot replay to me because of browser problems, you are replying to others here

for example, on issues related to the Armia Krajowa article. Is it this hopeless with you? Just be straightforward and tell me if this is the case. I have given up on your returning email and can give up on this also. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I'm unable to view diffs, in this context I have decided not to re-open or take any new MedCab or AMA cases. For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't re-opened the Armia Krajowa case, merely indicated the advice contained in WP:WTA could be useful. Addhoc 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why no information from you - just vagueness

Please tell me what is going on? Not just a vague apology but some real information. The email from Ars Scriptor to you about me, after which you ignore me? His ANI and history of bias against me and history of siding with Hanuman Das and Ekajaki and Anger22? Why is your "Welcome to AMA" the only contact you have ever initiated with me? Is this the normal advocacy program? I don't understand. Why are you carrying on normally (per your contributations for today) but nothing but a vague reply on your talk page to me with no concrete or helpful information? Why do you not reply to eamil? Please be more forthcoming. Please take me seriously as a person and not "Mattisse Redux". Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not your advocate. You decided to close the case and I have not re-opened it. Addhoc 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. So that mean you feel no obligation to explain any of the past odd happenings to me, even if you are not my Advocate now? Nothing? Ever? Even the questions I asked when you were my advocate? Just zero? This (to me) seems unprofessional and wrong. I feel I have been left completely "out of the loop". So the end result is, when you were my Advocate you did not have to answer and questions or have any contact with me, and now that you are no longer my Advocate the same is true? I don't see the point of Advocacy then. Well, thanks for intimating (since you are not clearly stating anything and I have to read between the lines) that you do not ever intend to clarify anything. I will not trouble you again. Sincerely, Mattisse 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack warning

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

"Again, possibly advise that you shouldn't feed the trolls. Addhoc 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"

That is a personal attack against the users who certified the article. Fourdee 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, such comments in a user conduct RfC are entirely legitimate. I would recommend you have a look at WP:SPADE... Addhoc 11:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias."
I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia. What makes you think otherwise? As far as I can tell the same is true of Lukas19. Fourdee 11:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fourdee, could I request that you don't post on my talk page, thanks... Addhoc 13:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could I request that you not call me a troll without offering some kind of justification? Could I also request that you not post snide comments on my RfCs? Fourdee 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also you have a very peculiar record on the subject of NPA:
"-- No Personal Attacks --
Describing persons who are followers of a specific belief, in this case Matrixism, as kooks is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You have been warned. Addhoc 11:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
I find it very strange that you saw fit to warn someone over calling kooks kooks, but I am a "troll" for objecting to Psychohistorian repeatedly and constantly calling people things like "paranoid", having "inferiority complexes", etc. Clearly whatever fits your persistent religious agenda is right, and everyone else is a troll... Perhaps it is not a coincidence that your obvious interest in mysticism leads you to portray me as a troll, since I am trying to remove the mysticism from the Emergence article? Fourdee 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Could I again request that you don't post on my talk page... Addhoc 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, now that sounds familiar. I made that exact same comment to another user ... or was it another user? Careful, or you'll expose your sockpuppetry Jaskaramdeep 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, could I suggest that you also don't post on my talk page? Thanks, Addhoc 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Muero/Addhoc. It's all coming apart now, isn't it? It seems that you've abandoned your Muero account - no activity since I found you out. That's a shame, seeing as how you put so much effort into that account. I'm thinking about reporting you. It can't be good for Wikipedia to have advocates who try and abuse their power like that, wouldn't you agree? Thanks again Jaskaramdeep 00:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. In the meantime, could you avoid posting on my talk page... Addhoc 11:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just this one, or your other user page as well? Maybe you can specify just how many sockpuppets you're using, so I can remind myself not to comment on those talk pages as well. Jaskaramdeep 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing not to post on my talk page in future... Addhoc 14:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent 3 emails to you and never received any in return

Your replies to posted questions were superficial - you did not educate or provide guidance as it sounded like I would receive from the AMA page. And now I only accidently ran across you message to me since I am not contributing to articles anymore. Otherwise I probably would not have known you answered me. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me feel bad

Your answers are uninformative. I am taking you off my watchlist as running across your occasional reply to me makes be feel too bad and awful. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruben RfA

PhilKnight/Archive8, thank you for your support in my RfA which passed on 13th December 2006 with a tally of 49/10/5. I am delighted by the result and a little daunted by the scope of additional responsibilities; I appreciate your comments re lack of experience in some aspects and I shall be cautious in my use of the new tools. I am well aware that becoming an Admin is not just about a successful nomination, but a continuing process of gaining further experience and I should welcome your feedback. Again, many thanks for supporting my RfA, feel free to contact me if you need any assistance. :-) David Ruben 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank you for your input at my RFA, which successfully closed at 58/2/0. I will think about the 10 questions and answers I had, and I hope that I will use the tools constructively and for the benefit of Wikipedia. If you ever need any help, don't be afraid to drop me a line. I'm here to help afterall! ‎8) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which I have chosen to withdraw early at a final count of (10/8/3) as it was unlikely to gain consensus. I will do my best to improve in the areas that were cited as my weaknesses, and will reapply sometime in the future when I have gained more experience. Please always feel free to help me along with a suggestion on how I could improve, and if you ever need help, I am ever at your service. Best as always, Dar-Ape 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Armia_Krajowa#Disputed_Paragraph

Comments appreciated, I feel like I am running in circles. Perhaps you can try to break the deadlock and help us out.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case Assignment.

Hey Addhoc. Can you take a look at this case and see if it strikes your fancy? Case Link. I'm trying to get some of the backlog cleared up. Thanks Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 13:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WildfireSOMA

It's been a month without any response from WildfireSOMA, so I made a parting comment on the dispute page, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17_Experience_Design. --Ronz 21:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks Headphonos 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I composed the above and posted it on your talk page. Addhoc 13:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InShaneee

I believe that an RfAr of this admin is appropriate now. Will you assist me in creating it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my internet connection is working on a sporadic basis, I'm not sure that I can realistically assist. Could I suggest you file a request with the AMA? Addhoc 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Experience design

It still refers to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-17_Experience_Design. Is it supposed to be removed now the case is closed? Do you still think the controversial-tag is appropriate? --Ronz 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know... Addhoc 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil templates

Why did you change the templates {{civil0}} and {{civil2}}) to redirect to a non-existent one??? - CobaltBlueTony 02:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CobaltBlueTony, I didn't. Civil2 was deleted following Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_7#Template:Civil2 and Civil0 was a template that I created and then renamed. After it was renamed, Doc glasgow speedied it.[1] I've left a note about this on his talk page. Addhoc 10:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

wikt:deprecate != wikt:depreciate. >Radiant< 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 17:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Armia Krajowa

Could you perhaps comment again? I have a deja vu: again a single editor against a consensus of several others (including people from WP:MILHIST review)... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikidefcon

Hi there, I respect your opinion about Wikidefcon and I'm not going to change it but the amount of vandalism vandalproof is receiving is massive, I'd even go as far as to say overwhelming. I won't chnge it but I respect your opinion and I hope you can respect mine. Tellyaddict 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with User talk:Jesup

Thanks for reverting the anon-IP vandal on my Talk page. He started on my Talk page after an admin semi-protected my main user page. (This is all retribution because I (and others) called him on his using a new account (User:Marshalbannana and now User:Marshal2.0 to get around a perm-block on User:Jacknicholson, when he tried to force an change (youtube link) into Katana against consensus - we finally had to go to full protection there.) See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd). Thanks again! I'm just hoping he gets tired of this game sometime. — jesup 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Now he's started in on vandalizing my comments on Talk:Katana. He must be home sick today. Thanks again; you may want to watch Katana as well. jesup 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I'm puzzled by your comments here (User_talk:Silentriver); you seem to be assuming bad faith regarding my edits and warning messages. SUBWAYguy 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that instead of edit warring over the placement of tags and giving dubious warnings about alleged policy infringements, you could have spent your time cleaning up the article. Addhoc 18:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all my tags and warnings were proper under the circumstances. I hardly think it was proper to call them "pointless" and to characterize me as "grumpy." However, I do agree with you that it would have been useful for me to have cleaned up the article personally: I will try to improve on that in the future. SUBWAYguy 03:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I should have phrased my comments in a more constructive manner. Addhoc 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my RfA. I've felt it best to withdraw on this occasion and think about the good advice I received. As you suggested, I think I will try again, but I need to get that experience first. Thanks again, Jakew 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Hi Addhoc, I am honored by your barnstar. It is my wish that I may deserve it. Thank you. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]