User talk:PhilKnight/Archive22

advice requested

There are two biography pages(Glenn Greenwald and Joe Klein) where there are very real tensions evident. It was -- more or less -- decided by the three of us to go to the Biography Administrator's page and request feedback. The problem is that as of this writing, the only ones who have commented on that page about the issue are we three! Do you have any suggestions on whom we might turn to for advice/mediation? Quite frankly, while I am not seeing red just yet, I am starting to see dark pink and I am feeling some perspiration under my collar. Thank you for any thoughts that you might have on the matter.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just for your information: Things have quieted down; I believe we can handle our disgreements without third-party opinions/mediation.<br. />--Nbahn (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Having Fun?

• : ) Icestorm815 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just delete my monobook.js, clearly there is some sort of problem, at least with how I was using it. Addhoc (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for trying to communicate!

I apologise in advance for this attempt to communicate with you again after your previous edit summary of "Please don't post on my talk page again. Thanks!".

Unfortunately you did not deal with the issues I raised before, so they need to be raised again:
On 9 December 2007 13:48hrs, you removed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Candidate pages (users) my own candidature with an edit summary of "move Bruce1333 into approved; delist others" again without removing the corresponding subject RFC page!.

It is now more than 9 days since any edit has been made to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAlice.S&diff=175530272&oldid=175529524 and this page should be deleted according to the rules: "Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained."

Please now remove both (my preference); or restore both - but do not continue to leave this (failed) candidate subject RFC page there indefinitely to blacken my name!

This abusive user's (perspicacite) attempt to raise an out of process ArbCom against me was also rejected unanimously a few days ago with an edit summary of "remove request as rejected" and the same process should be followed for this (abortive) Rfc: it should be removed rather than left to fester indefinitely.

I have this talk page on my watchlist so please reply here. Thanks for listening and calmly and rationally considering my request. Alice.S 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of process

I was intrigued by your recent removal of the notification of the Rfc page but not the Rfc page itself. Surely the correct procedure for User:Perspicacite to follow, is for him to prepare his draft Rfc in his own user space and only when it is ready for listing to then move it to the Rfc space (accompanied by the correct notification to me and the correct listing).

"Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained."

This out of process Rfc has been hanging around for 5 days now and remains listed at "Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page"

Please reply here since I am watching this page. Alice.S 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(2)

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." also has not occurred. Alice.S 13:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alice, I've deleted the page. Addhoc (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated. Alice.S 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must protect, protect

Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Addhoc, thanks for your support in my RfA. I look forward to living up to yours and others' trust and expectations.

Enjoy the haikus.
--A. B. ^(talk) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My user talk page

Thanks for the revert - I don't have a problem with someone abusing me on my talk page (the editor's clearly got a Film noir citation thing going on) so I've reinstated their comment. Thank you very much for keeping your eye out, though! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Godzilla

It's not the formatting that bothers me, it's the removal of information. The reformatting does not justify the information removal. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Med Cabal

I noticed you listed yourself as an experienced "buddy" at the Med Cabal. I was wondering if I could partner with you as someone whose looking to get more involved in the dispute resolution process. Besides reading the how-to page and having a general understanding of the steps of DR, are there any other things I should do before diving into my first case? I'll watch here unless there is some special "Med Cabal Buddy" page I should use. Mbisanz (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mbisanz, yes certainly, let me know when you find a case that interests you. Addhoc (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, how frequently are cases filed, seems like one every couple of days has been the current pace? Mbisanz (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, however there could be a dip over the festive season. Addhoc (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

your help on category

thanks for your help today with items in Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal templates. i couldn't figure out which template was causing those other items to show, but it looks like you fixed it. either that, or at least you gacve it a try, as shown a few edit histories. :-) so whichever it is, thanks. feel free to write. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if any of my changes were helpful, but I agree the problem appears to be fixed. :-) Addhoc (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Progress spacecraft/Launch}}

I realize template:Progress spacecraft/Launch is intended for transclusion in a template-like fashion, but question whether it belongs in template namespace or article namespace. You moved it without discussion. Why? (Feel free to followup at Template Talk:Progress spacecraft/Launch.) (sdsds - talk) 05:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, templates should be in the template namespace. Addhoc (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to drop a note to say "thank you very much!" for your comments on my successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received, and will be using the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

policy change

Greetings. You left a question for me at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. What policy change are you referring to? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, policy change probably isn't the correct phrase then. I meant the resolution by the Wikimedia Foundation last March, and the proposed policy created in response. Addhoc (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Template renaming of Template:Godzilla

A template that you have been involved in editing, Template:Godzilla, has been listed for renaming. If you are interested in the renaming discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Template talk:Godzilla#Requested move. Thank you. — Enter Movie (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FrugalReader page...

Could you please put the page back up? It is much like PaperBackSwap, and it has its own article. Also, this page is very new and will be improved upon in the recent days. Thanks!

Ksax (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ksax, from your talk page I gather that Spebi is handling this. Addhoc (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One of your AfD closes at DRV

Hi - I don't think anyone's bothered to notify you (par for the course), but the creator of Coral Calcium Claims has taken its AfD, which you closed, to deletion review. Just a courtesy notice. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have seen that you have edited the Biblia Impex India article. I think some of these related articles have major (some maybe even extreme) pov problems and have opened a discussion about this at Talk:Voice of India and Talk:Koenraad Elst. Maybe you're interested. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Batbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good afternoon, Addhoc. Regarding your block of the above user as a "..bad hand sock...", could you please provide some more information? Considering I wasn't in your position when the block was made, I obviously don't have all the information; if you could just provide me with it, I can handle the unblock request that user has made, and be on my way ;) Cheers, Anthøny 12:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a look at the diff? Addhoc (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(e.c.) This one? Yes, but I'm not seeing any disruptive behaviour from that account that would class it as a bad hand... Anthøny 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at his deleted user page history? Addhoc (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also this edit Addhoc (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also this was his first edit which given he is a sock of an experienced editor implies this was set up to a bad hand account. Addhoc (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the full picture now :) thank you for your time! Anthøny 12:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).

  jj137 ^♠ 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Darn, you beat me to it Haven(comics) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven Pic

The information is right, so it looks good to me. Good Work.-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scally

An article that you have been involved in editing, Scally, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scally (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sab Cav

Um, although you might have fooled him as you almost fooled me, you didn't actually protect the page; you just added the template. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops :-D Addhoc (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New Medcab case question

Hi. i have a new Medcab case open for Palestinian people. however, it is not showing up under new cases. Any idea why? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

never mind, sorry. now it is showing up. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AIV User Blocked

Thanks for blocking that user. Can you delete all of the images that they have uploaded?

Special:Contributions/Narnina

Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

British regional slurs

I came across this article British_regional_slurs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_regional_slurs&oldid=159815547which I think had merit but which seems to have been redirected to another article by you which does not really cover the same subject.Although there was a merge suggestion I do not see that any of the material has been merged, and neither in my opinion should it as the subject areas only overlap superficially. As a result the work of editors to the original article has been lost. I am mindful to remove the redirect. Do you object, and if so why? I know the article does not carry (m)any references at the time or redirect, but it is going to be hard to do so as the topic is regional spoken language and therefore is somewhat obscure (at least in literary form), and in any case the article was relatively new. I certainly recognize most of the words there, though I had forgotten quite a lot of them. --Tom (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The content was a list of unsourced dictionary definitions. If you restore this content, I suggest you transwiki the individual definitions to Wiktionary. Addhoc (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)