User talk:PhilKnight/Archive11

User talk:ElderStatesman

I noticed that you reverted, then changed your mind about the above page. This user is blocked permanently for sockpuppetry, and the page explicitly states that it should not be modified or deleted. I will continue to revert his changes. Orangemarlin 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered protecting the page? Addhoc 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user does. This user has utilized a number of sockpuppets over the past few months. I think it's important that it stays there, so if in the future some other sockpuppet appears, we can easily track down the history. This sockpuppet has been very disruptive, and it is difficult to manage him. If you think I should just give up, I'll take it under advisement. Orangemarlin 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks.
--Meno25 08:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernham is back

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported him at [1] and commented on a report of his against another user at [2]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse's Case

I am currently looking for an Advocate to take Mattisse's Case, as I cannot deal with her in any capacity any longer. Would you be willing? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, but no. Since the media-wiki software was upgraded to alow users to see the amount of bytes being removed or added in diffs, I haven't been able to view any diffs from my home PC. Addhoc 17:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I've replied... if possible, I'd like to keep the thread to my talk page. User_talk:Autocracy#Adminship. Thank you, --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Hemlock Martinis RfA

I mean that talk page edits, projectspace edits, and especially user talk page edits are not nearly as important as mainspace edits, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we're here to make Wikipedia better, so those aren't valid reasons to oppose. --Rory096 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If the candidate was a prolific article writer, I probably would be persuaded. However, from his answers, his article writing doesn't appear to be very impressive. Also, for a candidate who wants the extra buttons to help in the deletion process, more XfD experience could reasonably be expected. Addhoc 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Aryans

I'm not aware that you've answered my question on the Talk page: "Is your participation purely technical, or do you claim to have sufficient familiarity with relevant materials and literature to be able to judge issues such as undue weight, scholarly consensus and appropriate coverage?". If you've answered, I'd appreciate an indication of where and how. (If you haven't, and choose not to, that's fine too.) Thanks. rudra 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly technical, I guess. Addhoc 09:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. rudra 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message

It would be also nice that your informed the other parties involved to also not involve in edit wars, and start them to begin with. Seems odd to me you choose to message me and not them, how come? Seems rather odd...

Secondly, I'm presenting a neutral view, but others are ganging up and has shown in there talk pages, and they are constantly changing their position , and provided no sources. Then they keep on reverting, showing no sources to back a a claim. But you won't do anything about that, will you?

Their still doing it as we speak.

Cosmos416 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - the other parties have been edit warring, however because of 'ganging up', they are further away from a potential block. Addhoc 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but what is still bothering me is that you still have not notified user Paul Barlow of his violation of the 3RR rule and in sighting the edit war in question.

Consensus it worth nothing, if I am citing a reputable source that was even acknowledged on the New York Times, and Paul Barlow and his gang are taking multiple angles of why it's doesn't fit (And show no citations or studies or sources of any kind when repeatedly asked), but it's has a clear relationship dealing with Aryan Invasion theory.

He has personally attacked me (my comprehension of the English language to that tune), and also the sources that I provided (criticizing and saying it's invalid the fact that the source was found on the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Indic Studies department website, in a power point document, even though it was a citation quoting Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University.

This so-called consensus is actually censorship of researched studies and all I'm asking for is transparency, and being neutral in pointing of an (Aryan) Indigenous theory by Stephen Oppenheimer, not to mention he is a world expert in genetics synthesis.

They have also objected to the fact of mentioning the the Aryan Invasion Theroy is a hypothesis, and also for an inclusion of a misquotation by Michael Witzel, where it is claimed that he deliberately misquoted an important passage in the Rg Veda relevant to the Aryan Invasion theory, and was pointed out to Witzel with a power point document at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth conference in June 2006, in which scientist, geneticists, and linguists from all over the world came, and were present when this took place.

They "gang" resorted to claims that it was inaccurate (on the basis of the Layout of the University web page), and already well known, but wasn't important, but when I asked him for a source saying what he claimed, he continuously ignores it.

Can you please notify Paul Barlow of violation of the 3RR on April 6 in the Aryan Invasion Theory article, and please ask people in the Aryan Invasion theory page to state their position clearly, and to show sources supporting their position (refuting my claims in other words), because simply shouting me down, with no strong position, or sources when asked is not a consensus. That what my reasoning for the Reverts.

I keep on asking the them to state their position on why it's not relevant to the page, and he will sight a reason with traces of original research, then change his position, and ignores requests of providing sources, or saying what his position clearly is. Thank you. Cosmos416 4:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Warnings aren't "cautions" they don't have any value, other than to communicate. Accordingly, to give Paul a warning after the edit war has stopped wouldn't serve any useful purpose. Addhoc 09:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you warn me, but after I asked you on April 6, you didn't, and still won't. If you don't want to, maybe another Admin on Wikipedia can explain how when he Reverted 4 or 5 times, and you warn me, but not him, and I asked you on the 6th and 10th now, and your refusing to do so, is somehow justifiable. Because that is unfair, not being neutral in this situation, or being grossly irresponsible. Your not even going to bring up all the other Issues I have brought up either now, are you? Seems like your favoring a certain side or ideology with the "lack of" a proper response after I have written a detailed explain of the page-protectionism going on, and personal attacks on me. Cosmos416 6:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm not an admin. Warnings are issued by any editor, not just admins. I've removed the warning from your talk page. Also, I don't think he reverted the same article 4 times in 24 hours. Addhoc 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but by the way your were acting it certainly seemed that way, and if you actually check the Aryan Invasion theory page for April 6th, you 'll see these Reverts by Paul Barlow:

08:55, 6 April 2007 Paul Barlow 09:15, 6 April 2007 Paul Barlow 09:29, 6 April 2007 Paul Barlow 12:26, 6 April 2007 Paul Barlow

It's funny how you saw my edits, but not his when they are on top of each other, funny eh? Hardly. Cosmos416 6:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance

Hey, I noticed you've offered your assistance at Wikipedia:Esperanza for edit wars and dispute resolution. I was wondering if I could bounce some stuff off of you. I'm not an inexperienced editor, and it's not a straightforward problem (as far as I can see) but any feedback would be appreciated. WilyD 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, could you give some more details. Addhoc 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sure, thanks - I just didn't want to go spewing it all out unless you had the time. WilyD 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Racism by country

About a month ago, User:Pejman47 deleted about half the content on Iran [3] claiming it didn't deal with racism, but religious discrimination against Jews and Bahais. He also removed a source and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. I restored the part about Jews, which are often considered a race, and the source, leaving Bahais out (agreeing that they're not really a "race").[4]
Pejman then deletes the whole section on Iran [5] and there's a few reverts back and forth, plus some dispute as to whether it's appropriate to have two almost identical dispute tags at the top:[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] over the course of maybe three days. I believe neither of us went over the letter of WP:3RR, but I may not have been keeping track.
Pejman then asks User:Khoikhoi for help [14] and Khoikhoi locks the article. I speak to Khoikhoi and offer to eventually rewrite the entire section, but ask for an unlock to work on other sections (i.e. other countries) [15] Khoikhoi tells me I have to work out a new version and propose it on the talk page [16]. I'll admit I was not real enthusiastic about this task. I say something to Khoikhoi about how edit war is rather grandious in this context, and how I've already offered a unilateral end to the dispute [17]. He still insists on a consensus for an Iran section before he'll unlock. [18]
Eventually, I put together an entirely new version for Iran [19] which is very tight. Ten references for eight lines of text, most of it from entirely impeccable sources. I invite Pejman to comment on it [20], of course. I also inform Khoikhoi [21] and here I'm fairly transparent I guess in my belief that the section won't be well received. I reiterate my offer to Khoikhoi just to let editors blank anything that's ever written under Iran because I really don't have the time to deal with it (I was involved in work at Muhammad about images in the article, so I had enough conflict already). Anyways, Khoikhoi still says the page won't be unlocked without a proposed section that has consensus [22]
The section gets feedback consisting of concluding that discrimination based on ethnicity is racism is original research [23] There's no racism in Iran [24] Just because your sources say it doesn't mean it's true [25]. Pejman's only response is this: [26] which I can't say much about.
Based on all this, I made an RfC: [27]
I got two pieces of feedback that supported the version I proposed [28] [29] and two guys just asked (apparently) rhetorical questions: [30] [31]
From here, I seem stuck. Without a real edit war, I'm not sure I can request mediation or arbitration. Without a consensus, I can't get the page unlocked (and again, no matter how appropriate the Iran section is, it's likely to cause an edit war anyways, I think). The whole page is in terrible shape and I don't like leaving it locked forever.
There may be more to this, but this is my essential bind, I think. I'd be really grateful for any assistance or advice you can offer. WilyD 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. After requesting unprotection, I would suggest you propose reintroducing the less contentious initial paragraph:

"Iran is a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The 1993 review of Iran's compliance with the treaty by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that although the government of Iran condemned racial discrimination in public statements, insufficient information was provided by Iran to properly assess how the convention was being implimented in Iran, and whether Iran was fufilling its obligations under the treaty. The Iranian representative respond to the committee saying that there has not been a census of racial demographics in Iran, that the government of Iran does not collect or use racial information in hiring government employees or university admissions and that Iran is not a multiracial society."

The next stage would be to edit the lead paragraph of the overall article to clarify what should be included. After establishing a clear and stable explanation of what the aricle should be about, then I would suggest you propose reintroducing the more contentious text. Addhoc 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sri Lanka

Hey Addhoc,

could you look at the article and at what Bodhi dhana is doing to it? I'm quite speechless. Cheers, Krankman 10:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To you

Again I apologise for any misunderstanding between us. I have completely no sense of who you are or what kind of person you are, as I do of most others here. I truly did not mean to abuse you in any way.

One thing that is completely none of my business is that I recommend, if at all possible, you get a new computer. I just got one within the last few weeks, and it is remarkable all the popups and things Wikipedia has that make figuring things out so much easier. (I offer this as I recently saw one of your remarks about not being able to see diffs.) My new computer was really cheap (and I don't like it as much as my old one) but it is much more powerful. Again, none of my business. And again, sorry. I was so desperate for information then, so out of the loop that I did not see the ways you were stepping in. Please forgive me. Wikipedia is an extremely difficult and inhospitable place, despite all the AGF expressions, and it takes a good while to get used to it. I still am not used to it as the meanness startles me still. But not you, you were never mean. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry that I goofed on my procedure at the television guideline. --Kevin Murray 18:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TY, TYVM!

For my award! Postcard Cathy 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still an AMA member?

Are you still a member of AMA? --CyclePat 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Addhoc 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Addhoc. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:vw

Hey Addhoc, I've undone your redirect of {{vw}}... I'm just so used to typing those 2 letters in when you're trying to do RCP real quick, and I don't use any tools, so... feel free to revert back to the redirect, obviously :) Cheers, – Riana ^ऋ 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Riana, I don't fully understand your reasoning, however I won't revert. Obviously, the redirect wouldn't prevent anyone using {{vw}} merely giving a subtly different message. Addhoc 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I go subst:vw it just shows as REDIRECT:Template:uw-vandalism1. Actually, I'll just leave your version... I should try getting used to the uw system anyway. – Riana ^ऋ 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've just tried using the template at WP:SAND and it seems to be working ok. Addhoc 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect of {{vw-n}}, with a substitution, is broken. It puts in a "REDIRECT". Can you make this work? — ERcheck (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ERcheck, I've just tested {{subst:vw|article}} at User talk:Addhoc/Sandbox and this seems to work ok. Addhoc 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your support. --Shirahadasha 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark on Image:That's So Raven s01e09.jpg

That watermark is present when the episode airs. It is not added after the fact. I don't think "This may indicate the copyright status of the image, which may make it inappropriate for Wikipedia use." or "Additionally, if this image is a user-created image, it is in violation of Wikipedia's image use policy." apply. - Peregrine Fisher 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello PhilKnight, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

SCH_FFX

Thanks for the heads up, go ahead and delete it, if it's not being used. I don't mind Renmiri 04:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wild Law (book)

Hi there Addhoc,

I noticed the rewrite you did to the above mentioned article, I was planning to work on it myself but you have really taken care of it. Although not new to writing, I am new to writing in the encyclopedic style needed for WP and this is a great example to me for a book entry!

The creator of the article is a newcomer to WP and very passionate about the things she writes about. I know this is not the best combination and I have pointed out to her the need for NPOV and the potential for COI in her writing and she understands and has been amenable to needed changes. I have made several to the article Earth jurisprudence, although it too needs work.

It would be a cool thing to do if you left a brief welcoming message mentioning the changes you made and the rationale, either on the article's talk page or her's. I don't think that every change needs to be explained, nor am I asking you to 'rationalize' your edits, I just think that experienced editors can encourage and support newcomers for the betterment of WP.

I am a relative newcomer here myself, and although my feathers are not easily ruffled I have at times been rather appalled by the tone that many old hands take in AfD's and on new user's talk pages. I feel that a welcoming and encouraging attitude in general, will much better serve the interests of Wikipedia in the long term. I am not speaking here to interactions with obvious vandals or assholes, but to well-intentioned people who may have much to contribute.

Again, please don't take anything I've written to be critical of your edits or personal communications in this or other areas, I just want to increase the general level of civility, encouragement and interaction on Wikipedia, especially with new editors. This world has a dearth of people with the ability to write a simple sentence in clear English and we need every one!

Thanks! --killing sparrows 17:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the Diligence Barnstar -- I do appreciate it :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Check you wiki-email. --Iamunknown 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation/Policy question

I'm sort of lost in navigating Wikipedia's policy section, but I found your name in the mediation section and I figured you'd be a good person to talk to. What is WP's stance on allowing individuals affiliated with various insitutions editting the article about who they are affiliated with? Specifically, User:Aauwed has contributed frequently to AAUW; the individual's name implies affiliation with the NPO, but the user's talk page mentions nothing. This strikes me as a conflict of interest, and I am wondering if this user is violating NPOV policy. Thanks for your help --Sludge 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sludge, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Thanks for raising this.Addhoc 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]