User talk:PhilKnight/Archive1

your question

I don't see how that picture is related to Buddism. And the swastika looks like a afterward photo editing work. I consider it a vandalism. Edipedia 21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the swastika is used in Buddhism, see Swastika#Buddhism. Were you viewing the thumb size image, or did you load the image into other software and view full size? Addhoc 21:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE CONTINUE TO HELP

Could you please continue your presence at Yoshiaki Omura page. I took up your suggestion, made some edits, all of which were citated etc - and Crum375 within seconds reverted them. This is just censorship.--Richardmalter 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and the internet

If it is not a question of being censored, it is a question of WP:ENC, is it encyclopaedic presenting what even you suggest and the article suggests is a hoax as a real religion. It has no place in that article, arguably it could appear in an article about hoaxes, but even then it seems pretty non-notable with no significant material written about it beyond the odd paragraph blurb. --pgk^(talk) 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I not only gave an explanation for opposing Addhoc's change to the article, I posted fair warning on the article talk page that he would be blocked for perpetuating this hoax that I have dealt with on Wikipedia for over a year now. Given his assurance that he will not edit the affected article, I have unblocked him. This is not a content dispute—this is a case of knowingly adding content to Wikipedia that has been rejected as false and fradulent in the past. Once Addhoc shows that he is receptive to Wikipedia's community standards for handling such content this issue will be resolved. Other than his fixation on the Matrixism issue, Addhoc has been a fine contributor—I would characterize him as a net positive contributor to the project. It would serve the interests of the project for Addhoc to become more responsive to corrective actions in the future. — Philwelch t 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and sorry to see you're leaving Wikipedia. Addhoc 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutism

As far as Just War theory goes, I was merely trying to clarify what was already on the page. If I accidentally changed the meaning through my attempt at clarification it is only due to my limited expertise on the subject and should of course be changed to align correctly with how Just War theory really is defined.

On the other point, I wasn't attempting to show a case for "human rights" from agency, except insofar as one thinks that human rights and moral rights (ie, moral protection) are interchangable terms. Using human agency (roughly defined as rationality and free will) as a fundamental premise for morality and moral protection is a mark of deontological ethics, the ethical category to which absolutism belongs. Deontological ethics is the main competitor to utilitarianism in moral philosophy. So I guess I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at; perhaps I simply was unclear and have confused you, in which case you are welcome to clean up my comments for clarity.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback! Greg

Thanks for the Barnstar!

It is much appreciated!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further matrixism links

Looing at those, they are both quoting a single source and in my view certainly don't provide any level of verifiability, as even that single source only quotes the matrixism source website as claiming a following. It is so vague as to be meaningless, I doubt very much meets our notibility requirements nor our NPOV or reliable source requirements. --pgk^(talk) 16:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

I saw there was an obvious mistake, so was only too happy to help. :) John Smith's 21:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar, I don't think I deserve it though. -- Jeff3000 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip :-)

Hi Addhoc :-) Thanks for the tip you left on my user page. I agree that I used an extremely poor and inflammatory choice of words, and I appreciate you taking the time to kindly point that out to me. I shall try to be more careful in the future ^_^ Tanyia 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome snippet ?

You've posted this welcome snippet on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOleksandrL&diff=67474117&oldid=67472521

Why? Oleksandr 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you posted a question on the Just War critics section and I was going to reply. Just before replying, I gave a welcome message, which is customary, as you can see on my page, VSmith left a similar message. As it happens, you removed the question, so I didn't reply. Addhoc (formerly 80.189.???) 10:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults

Impressed to see your and cairoi's long list of edits today. Cool. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Cmdr RfC

I caught your comment on SC's talk. I find it unfortunate you feel this way. Why this reaction? - Chris 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, possibly should have left a more neutral comment, such as the RfC would probably be more effective if based on a few well chosen examples, without any examples that could be construed as borderline. Addhoc 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Supreme Cmdr

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. Stifle (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Addhoc 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scally

That was just 3 votes. By people who made the scally article and a nobody. It is not concensus--Josquius 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No concensus means there is no concesus to the negative either...--Josquius 20:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omura/BDORT

Addhoc , thank you for your well-meaning efforts at that article. Although I disagree on technical grounds with many of your changes, it may be good to you to get involved with the article and learn about it, so I will postpone my comments and refrain from reverting you for now.

If you are truly committed to spend the countless hours defending WP's NPOV against an admitted advocate of BDORT, who sells it for a living, despite the procedure (and related techniques) being declared '...irresponsible and unacceptable' by a Medical Disciplinary Review Board in NZ, please carry on.

Be aware however, that the advocates, of which we have seen several, will persist until the article will look their way. When they are done, it will say that BDORT is a wonderful technique, that can diagnose and heal most diseases, from the common cold to cancer, and has simply not been appreciated by mainstream medicine. Be also aware that there are people out there, potential WP readers, who will rely on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses and treatments, as was the case in NZ, with possible dire consequences.

It is clearly not WP's role to perform any WP:OR, and we must only present WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But under persistent daily barrage and pressure of the BDORT advocates, the article can gradually erode, as well meaning editors, such as yourself, may not have the same willingness to devote the needed hours per day, every day, to it to defend against the professional advocates, who will persist indefinitely, as their livelihoods clearly depend on it.

Again, I will let you try this out for a while to get the feel of the situation and decide if you wish in fact to commit the needed long term resources to it. Thanks, Crum375 11:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Addhoc 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375, you repeat your misrepresentation of me again, even though I have explained this to you before. This is not so good. Again for the record here: I do not advertise, attract, "sell", or otherwise promote for monetary profit or reputation the BDORT to attract patients to come to consult with me, or any other activity that would lead to my financial gain. I practise Japanese-style acupuncture. As a technical tool within my consultations I sometimes use the BDORT. The patients do not know it by that name, mostly do not know what I am doing, etc. If that is not clear enough for you let me know. Otherwise you are repeating the mistake I highlighted to you on the Omura Talk page. I anticipate that you might say my website is some kind of promotion. You would be right. It is technically promoting my techniques to other practitioners as a non-financial friendly sharing of information with colleagues. I hope that corrects your misunderstanding. Richardmalter 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. linas 14:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Page !

lol no worries i'm wp-sleeping anyway thanks for your efforts re mediation on Omura – I wish you well Arcsincostan 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Maybe. You'll have to go through the secret but not that really secret initiation ritual for the There Is No Mediation Cabal, involving three pigs, a billy-goat, 75 Puerto Rican Wikipedia editors, a midget, and a few hamsters for good measure.

KIDDING! Just kidding!

Put your name on the list and come lurk with us on freenode in #wikipedia-medcab.

Remember, THERE IS NO CABAL... or is there...? CQJ 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at the moment I've only got a months experience of editing, so I won't join just yet. Not that the cabal exists of course... Addhoc 17:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General Tojo

FYI regarding User:Guardi: You've just had your first encounter with a General Tojo sockpuppet. He's a "shoot on sight" vandal. Please see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo for more details. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Addhoc 17:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root of all evil

I’m not particularly concerned about this issue, nor did I put in the piece of text in question, but can I ask why you removed the percentage chance of getting cured at Lourdes from the root of all evil article? What do you mean “it’s not encyclopaedic to analyse opinions”? Thanks. Miller 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Accusations

You are you making false accusations. The evidence you have presented to suggest that I am into puppets is a joke. You are just upset you can't seem to force your POV. Believe me there are enough people who believe the article intro is flawed. My advice to you is to learn to better *articulate* your points rather than descending into mudslinging. Please take this as an honest advice. Learn to convince other people in good faith than trying to create animosity. Trincomanb 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me. In cop tv shows is it the innocent or guilty who say the evidence you have presented is a joke? Addhoc 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its cop tv that you use to determine if someone is guilty or innocent, may god have mercy on your poor soul. Didn't you know it was all play acting ? Trincomanb 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Just about everything I ever learned was from NYPD Blue. Are you sure? Addhoc 11:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to silence people who don't agree with your POV will not succeed, I assure you that. You first posted false accusations against me that you seem to have retracted without an apology. Thats clear evidence of below the belt behaviour. Perhaps you should practise what you preach. Learn to convince other people in good faith than trying to create animosity. Trincomanb 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith? Yes, thanks for the reminder, I'm sure I've got a template in here somewhere... Addhoc 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Trincomanb 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Addhoc 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Advice

Please try to write in a measured, nuanced, encyclopedic and factual way. Excessive and tendentious edits might disturb the work of other editors and be reverted. You might find reading WP:POV useful in this respect. Thank you. Elalan 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Elalan 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Elalan! Addhoc 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and Harrassment, Threatening Remarks at other Users

You are being warned for the second time for appearing to be uncivil and harassing other users who don't share your POV. You have repeatedly issued warning templates on user talk pages, with the sole purpose of intimidating them and without any form of evidence. There appears to be circumstantial evidence that appear to show you have left some threatening comments on my talk page directed to me and my family (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trincomanb&oldid=70316915) and covered that up by making a comment try to distance yourself from it. You have appeared to have done this anonymously to prevent getting caught. Online harrasment is a crime in many countries and continued attempts to do this will result in a complaint made to Wikipedia adminstrators and the relevant police authorities. It would be prudent for you to read the wikipedia Harassment policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Trincomanb 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for what's it worth, I agree the person who made the threats was probably acting illegally. User_talk:Ruchiraw received similar threats, so the motivation was possibly to start a flame war. I condemn equally threats against Wikipedian. My POV is I support the Norwegian attempts to broker a peace settlement that should in my opinion include self determination. Before editing under the user name Addhoc, I edited under my IP address, which is 80.189.89.44. Thanks for your comments Addhoc 22:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific claim that your edited under 80.189.89.44 before using the user name Addhoc does not add up. Looking at all edits for your supposed ip address only shows an edit today [1] for this comment. There is no evidence for previous edits using ip 80.189.89.44 as you claim. Trincomanb 23:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment about my IP address before using the user name Addhoc, the IP address was movable, so I edited under 80.189.??.??, have a look a Civilian casualties to see some of my handiwork. Addhoc 19:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR applies except for obvious vandalism, which this certainly isn't...

That applies to other editors more than me. I am merely correcting errors in the article. Wikipedia is based on FACTS and not POV's. When a user deliberately reverts an article in favor of his or her POV that is a vandal. And I’m not doing that. Unfortunately, users on LTTE page acts like 7 year olds - showing disrespect to every other user except for what they want to add. The intro. was discussed in the talk page before and everyone had to compromise in some way to reach an agreed intro. At that time these user did not contribute in anyway and now keep changing to their POV. This is clearly showing disrespect to other users and disrespecting Wikipedia policies. Keep in mind that wikipedia is based on Facts and you can change the article any amount of times if that is to genuinely maintain quality and NPOV(FACTS)of the article!----RavenS 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, when a user reverts an article because of their peception of NPOV, this is a good faith edit in a content dispute, which certainly isn't vandalism. You have said the LTTE are terrorists should be described as such, this is clearly against the advice of WP:WTA:terrorism. However, I agree that some users are acting in a manner that is slightly immature. Finally, I would advise you are not correct in your last statement: you cannot make more than three good faith reverts in twenty-four hours. Addhoc 10:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

powerbasic

Hello, I am not sure what is going on. I posted two threads here regading the Powerbasic entry in Wikipedia and they have both dissapeared. I got a warning message from you but no answer to any of my questions. I have come here to ask for you help in understanding the correct way to proceed. If I am not approaching this in the right way please let me know the correct procedure here. RealWorldExperience (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]