User talk:PhilKnight/Archive16

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of commentary and personal analysis

Actually I was reverting some old text and a bit of sourced text, not experimenting. --BoogaLouie 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the phrase "this applies to bin Laden and Qutb, though Khomeini does not seem to have mentioned it" is this a view published by a commentator or is this your own analysis? Addhoc 22:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism

Thanks for your work on finding sufficient references for pseudoskepticism; that's allayed my concerns about it's notability. There are still other problems with the article, but I won't worry you about that. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack O'Neill

Thanks for explaining what you meant with the {{primarysources}} tag. However, I'd appreciate if you'd explained it in the first place rather than simply directing me to a policy page which I'd already read. In addition, your edit summary was unnecessary; after the reply on the talk page, I wouldn't have continued reverting. I'm not a vandal or a fanboy, just a good faith editor who happens to have that particular article on my Watchlist. Thanks for your explanation. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at WP:ANI

WP:ANI#User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks.

Hello Adhoc, theres a discussion going on in regards to RodentofDeath and thought you might like to join in to at least offer your views. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 20:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help on Evolution

Hello. I wonder if you might be able to help me on Evolution where I have been struggling in a protracted discussion against a few editors who have sunk to minor abuse, and attempts to discredit me. I've conducted myself most carefully, consider myself very knowledgable in the field, and am feeling upset by the abuse. I see that my main abuser, OrangeMarlin, quotes you abusively on his personal page. Regards --Memestream 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the page to my watchlist, however I would suggest that you consider formal mediation. As it happens, I'm delighted to have been quoted on OrangeMarlin's user page. Addhoc 12:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

That was a pleasant surprise. Jeepday (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Template to WP:NEO?

As I have been working with the Bounding issue, I am wondering if there is an in-line or article template for neoligism (WP:NEO)? Does it come up sufficiently often for one to be created? Fireproeng 22:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. BTW, has Ahering@cogeco.ca left the project? Addhoc 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. His last edit was the "I'm sick of this..." here some time ago, but I have not seen a statement that he has decided to leave. I have let the tags sit for a while, and am about to act on them when I get some time.Fireproeng 05:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's your answer: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding Fireproeng 00:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By Nature food

Thanks for the assist on By Nature pet foods. Noles1984 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey article

Addhoc, I have requested mediation for the editing problems I am having with Sethie, but that could take some time to get to. Is there something that can be done to slow things down now? I just spent a lot of time trying to improve the Alice Bailey article (not the disputed "controversies" section), and Sethie reverted the biggest part of it with no discussion. Aside from everything else, I suspect he has gone beyond the 3revert rule. But the important thing is Sethie needs to discuss things, instead of edit war. His approach is making any effort at editing a waste of my time. Kwork 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that Renee, who just edited the article in an RfC, is herself an Alice Bailey follower: "I personally find Alice Bailey's work very enlightening and have several books of hers on my bookshelf." Obviously she should not have participated if she is not neutral. I hope mediation is more fair. Is there any pay to protest her participation in the RfC? Kwork 12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Thanks

Thanks a lot for the barnstar... not sure what I did to be so diligent, but I'll take the award anyhow :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

South Tibet

It is much larger than the indian state.It's just a geograhic name,I don't know why you insisted on merging two non-identical geograhic place names,considering they are not covering the same places.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert 3 times,there's so many sourced links in the current version,your redirect is only seen as malicious vandal.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reliable sources for 'South Tibet', only for the 'South Tibet Valley', which is covered by the Yarlung Tsangpo River (Tibet) article. Addhoc 09:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you see

I don't know if you remember the olden days of Starwood. If you do, I just noticed that User:Geo.plrd (the first mediator for Starwood - the one that did not show up) is now labeled as a sock puppet! Regards, Mattisse! —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for completing Logo Info

Thanks Addhoc, for adding the fair use rational to the Doka Logo. I will look at the logo guidelines in detail for any further logos. --Lumber Jack second account 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disamiguation needed

Dear all;

I have been looking for Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (appreviated as ADIA), but the search led me here. I guess we need to have a disambiguation page to include the possible appreviation. Haytham^Abulela 05:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adia"

Mediation Cabal

Sorry to bother you, but did the mediation between me and TheRingess end with your statement about me not grasping the situation about editing? I didn't realize that was the end of it, until Atlan pointed it out to me. Is this correct?

If so, you didn't comment on the other two issues, namely that TR was following me, and that the listing of my article for deletion was in bad faith. These were actually the more important issues. Please advise.

Sardaka 11:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

{{logo+rationale}}

Hello, I have added a category and some documentation to the template you created; feel free to change anything though. It is an excellent and very useful template bye the way! -- Chris.B 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping with the references on the Needahotel.com entry. I am trying to make this a factual and relavent entry and stop others from deleting it on me. Thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darragh.Flynn (talk • contribs) 15:37, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

That was not an attempt at fraud!!!! I copied and pasted the comments of another Wiki admin. What the hell do I have to do to get this page taken of the delete list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darragh.Flynn (talk • contribs) 10:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that. Addhoc 10:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Me again. Is the MedCab finished on the subject of my complaints?

Sardaka 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier. The mediation-cabal assists in the resolution of content disputes, while from your previous post, I gather your complaints relate to user conduct. Could I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes? Addhoc 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It made my day. : - ) --MZMcBride 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

help with naming of an article

Hi, I've been involved in a dispute about naming the article Ilinden Uprising which currently bears a name that is rare in English-language literature, and is only represented in Bulgarian literature and has vested interest in presenting it in such way. So far everybody except User: Mr. Neutron agreed that renaming is necessary, even more than the current page was POV copy/pasted from the original article which was named in a proper way. Your involvement would be appreciated, especially since even if I change the name and it is agreed upon from everybody except User: Mr. Neutron I am not familiar with any wikipedia mechanisms that would prevent him (and his collaborators, of which there are quite a few) from forcing the move to the POV name version. thanks Capricornis 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes so, this is purely Capricornis's POV. If you have interest, please get to introduce yourself to the talk page of the article. Mr. Neutron 04:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert editors for a content dispute in history

Hi, Since you are on the mediation cabal, I thought I'd ask your opinion. I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one there will help.

Could you please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. If you think an RfC is not a good idea, could you suggest some other options. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there isn't any backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, so if the request for comment process doesn't appear to be resolving the issue, I would suggest formal mediation. Obviously, you could try informal mediation, however given the complexities of the dispute, perhaps formal mediation would be more likely to provide a solution. Addhoc 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Addhoc. I will look into it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Welch and Matrixism

I just thought I would let you know that Phil Welch is continuing his personal crusade against any reference on Wikipedia to Matrixism. Recently he unilaterally deleted a section on Matrixism from the Wikipedia article on "The Matrix (series)". I am trying to notify all of the people who contributed to that section/article but it is hard to do as Phil has deleted the work up history from the Matrixism re-direct where it was expected to be preserved. TR166ER 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 15:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Invisible Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work and assistance on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, referencing and generally cleaning up articles that have needed attention for a long time. Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees ;) Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc 15:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: IP edits

Weellll, it was a user (an anon!) editing someone else's comments. But you're right, I am a little trigger-happy when it comes to reverting vandalism. I think there's so much that if you aren't somewhat trigger-happy, the wiki will disintegrate under the weight of it. Sorry, —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Commented on your editor review. Addhoc 15:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)