User talk:PhilKnight/Archive9

Could you help with some research?

Hello Addhoc,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I've been trawling through the MediationCabal archives and have noticed that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

Matt
MattB2 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, this may well be one of my last edits on wikipedia. I must say that you are one of the wikipedians I have a great deal of respected for. Unfortunately I don't understand how your post applies to my current situation. I know I can be a difficult person, but I really am upset with wikipedia at the moment. I don't see any future here for me. I came here because I thought I had something to offer from an intellectual and educational point of view. I have three small children, I thought I can help to make an brilliant educational resource for them. What I get is racist POV pushers and admins who support these racists, and their insults, while they also block or ban non racists. So I was wrong. Anyway I could go on and on. But what's the point? I mean really what's the fucking point? There is none. I agree with User:Deeceevoice when he states: (Wikipedia) is skewed toward a white, male, under-50 demographic -- and any hack with a computer and Internet access can edit virtually anything. This has resulted in both misinformation and disinformation; appalling subject matter deficits; and various biases vis-à-vis subject matter treating people of color User:Deeceevoice. All the best, I really do admire you. Keep the faith and all that. Love. Alun. Alun 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I went on wiki-break for basically the same reasons. However, in the 6 months I've edited, there has been a definite pattern of difficult editors, including trolls, bouncing around the dispute resolution process before ultimately being banned. Also, there are Wikipedia admins who are very aware of the difficulties. At the moment, I'm working on the WP:MISSING project, because it's closer to the ideals you mention and troll free. Also, you could be interested in the WP:BIAS project. Addhoc 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

Thank you! You are very kind, and it does my heart good to have my work noticed. :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space warfare in fiction

Hey Addhoc,

You said in the Space warfare in fiction AFD that you would like the page to have more referances. I userfied the page and am currently updating it so that I may post it later. If you would like to help me add referances, it can be found here.

Thanks,


S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 04:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generation adidas

I'm kind of confused about your proposed deletion of the Generation adidas article. I keep reading it, and all I read is exactly what the program is. Which part of it are you considering as spam/advertising? Bigdottawa 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding sources - I've removed the prod. Addhoc 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to George W. Bush

Addhoc, your participation in a discussion regarding specific edits you made to George W. Bush is requested here. --DachannienTalkContrib 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent WP:MUSIC edit

If we work off of consensus, why are you reverting to the non-consensus version? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to Guy's version. I understand that Radiant and W.Marsh also concur with his views. Addhoc 14:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those versions lack consensus, per the talk page. A number of people also noted that the changes were hasty at the so-called "central" place as well. If we work under a guise of consensus, your reversions were improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sourcing for Wally and Osborne

I decided to help the problem.

Here's one source: http://www.funbrain.com/comics/comic_ontherocks.html = Is on Funbrain! WhisperToMe 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one for the name change: http://wallyandosborne.com/2006/07/03/a-new-home/ WhisperToMe 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however a source should either be the equivalent of a BBC or CNN article, or a book discussing trends in modern culture. Addhoc 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6291561.html Would this count? It's not about On the Rocks per se, but it mentions: "Now Brallier is testing the market for graphic novels. Earlier this month FunBrain.com added its first comic strip, On the Rocks." WhisperToMe 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey Addhoc,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

Dear editor, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6, where I nominated a redirect created by you for deletion. Your input is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Balaskas

Just a short note to thank you for your work on the Balaskas article. Much appreciated. Maustrauser 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primarysources

I see that you removed the merge tag from Template:Primarysources, would you also block off the discussion on it has was done with the previous merge suggestion. Jeepday 14:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Addhoc 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up you might also want to remove the tag on Template:Unreferenced Jeepday 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, however the template appears to be protected at the moment. Addhoc 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

 Thank You,
PhilKnight/Archive9 for your Support!
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.


...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Jameson Botox

The source actually says "fan of". I agree it probably means "extensively used", but do you think we can be sure enough to rephrase that way? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, I'll remove the mention. Addhoc 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err - outright removal because we're not sure how to rephrase it is not quite what I had in mind ... but it's not a critical point, I guess. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna/Jameson/Massoli

I do believe "her mother had died" was a rare appropriate use of "Jenna", because Massoli actually applies equally well to the mother, the father, and the daughter, all of whom were mentioned recently. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, the problem is the article uses two surnames and her forname, which is jumping around a liitle bit. Addhoc 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I whackedelided the uses of just her forename that I could find, even including that first one, and you seem to have accepted the Massoli/Jameson switch, so ... Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard time - what do I/we need to do to make your FAC weak support into a full support (I won't insist on strong)? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can consider my previously weak support to be full support. However, I can no longer edit the user page, because its over 30kb, which is too much from my browser. Either you could just delete the "weak" and give an edit summary pointing here or you could include an arbitary section break. Thanks, Addhoc 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and I thought the warnings on Wikipedia: Article size not to apply to modern browsers... Arbitrary break added. Thank you! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer language article

Nice job on the refs there. I was planning to work on it as soon as I returned home from lecture today but when I got here, I saw you beat me to it. Thanks for contributing, I've felt all alone there for a while as nobody else has been seriously working on that article. I'll be expanding it and its daughter articles in the coming weeks. Keep it on your watch list and check up on it from time to time...your input would be appreciated. BTW, do you have access to the references you introduced there? I'm thinking specifically of Cambodian Linguistics, Literature and History: Collected Articles (Jacobs and Smyth). If so where did you acquire it? That book is not only hard to find but very expensive when you do. Cheers.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note and excellent work on the article. Regarding the reference, I've added a link, but I don't have access to a paper copy. Addhoc 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Search template

Thanks for coming up with this - a really good idea and very useful! I've added a few more sources and tweaked the format a bit. Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was scolded by another user for trying to help expand your template, which I was genuinely excited by. I'm not sure what I was supposed to have done wrong, but if I have, I apologize to you. The template version with my changes, I've now put at Template:FindSources2. Its just a suggested expanded version. Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Addhoc 09:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith Edit

OK. I'm sorry. I must of not realized it was a good faith edit or accidentally rolled it back anyways without thinking. Thanks for notifying me, and I'll try not to do it again. Thanks! Wikipedian27 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article deletion

If you don't know enough about philately to know that the Stanley Gibbons catalog is a key authoritative reference, more reliable than 80% of WP's references, then what business do you have even expressing an opinion on the quality of references in VR official? Have you ever even seen an SG specialized catalog, let alone read it? Stan 14:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the online version, which produces no results. Addhoc 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Dmitri Maksutov

I, for one, will vigorously fight against deleting this article. He was an important figure in the scientific community and invented a popular type of telescope that is still sold commercially today. Rsduhamel 17:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I won't pursue this to AfD. Addhoc 17:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Award of a Barnstar

Thanks! – Qxz 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of QiLinux

Hi Addhoc, I saw your proposed deletion and looked at the Qilinux pages. There seems no reason to delete the article, but also no reason to keep it, as it appears to have stagnated: no news updates on its homepage for over half a year and apparently nobody watching it here. Regards, --Theosch 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this search didn't turn up any reasonable english language sources. Accordingly, I would consider this a valid article for proposed deletion. However, if anyone wants to salvage the article and can find some reliable sources, then I won't pursue this to AfD. Addhoc 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to find lots of (mostly duplicate, over 6 months old) google references, also this one [1] from last August. So, it seems to be alive, but not being followed very actively. I can add a link or two if you want it to stay, but if you would like to delete it, I won't bother. I could also try to contact the main developer, Davide Madrisan. Qilinux seems to have some degree of notability in that it is the only small distribution which claims to be "built from scratch". Would you like me to do something? Thanks --Theosch 14:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Prod-nn}}

Awesome! I just did a minor grammar fix on it. Thanks for letting me know. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FN F2000

The article "source" you're adding is by your own admission not about the F2000. I read the article, and it mentions the F2000 once with no (NPOV) info about it. What about that article makes it a source for the F2000? —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there aren't any secondary sources, the only references are self-published sources, that is by FN Herstal, or a reference to a site that only uses open sources. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Also, I'm not sure why you believe The Guardian is a POV source. Addhoc 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the primary/secondary issue. That's not what I'm asking you. I don't think The Gaurdian is POV. What I think is that what little is does say about the F2000 is POV. I want to know what you find about that article that is a "source" for the F2000. It's not even about the F2000.
"There are a list of arguably more reliable weapons... ...or the Belgian F2000 modular assault weapon system which has a reputation for being dirt resistant..."
Sounds POV to me, and not very informational in any case. Guns.ru provides a good secondary source (used in several articles and pretty well known), open source or not. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod & notifying creator script

importScript('User:Dycedarg/easyprod.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu');
importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css');

Opens in new window to notify creator; May need to use firefox. Add to User:Addhoc/monobook.js

--Parker007 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I put back prod by reverting to last edit by you. --Parker007 19:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Addhoc 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]