User talk:PhilKnight/Archive26

Nancy Reagan

I have attempted to create a MedCab request for the nancy reagan article but have been unable to create the MedCab request.

Please view my user discussion page as well as the Nancy Reagan discussion page for details.

I eagerly await your assistance. Thank you so much. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the page here.--Addhoc (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I understand correct, I now edit that page with the information requested and you review it, yes?

Thanks so much. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you could edit the page with the information requested, I'll review it. Addhoc (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do tonight, thanks again! 207.237.228.83 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no chance this evening. I received [this message] on my talk page and replied [here].
Will complete the form tomorrow evening for your and Doug's action. Thanks again. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute - how to work to resolution

I appear to be in an edit war with another editor, and would like to resolve the issue. However, I'm having difficulty doing this because despite leaving messages on the article page Fox in Socks and on the user's talk page 75.40.33.116 (talk · contribs), they do not reply or nor do they attempt to discuss the issue. The only response is a revert and/or re-edit of the page, plus wiki-comments to the effect: "Please do not delete or move this text." The fact that the user is an anonymous IP also make s life difficult as it appear that they can sometimes change IP address. Any suggestions about the best way forward within the Wikipedia guidelines/policies would be gratefully received. The edit in question is not particularly controversial, but I don't like to give in to what feels to me like bullying tactics.. Thanks. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I have created a portal called Portal:Animal and I am lacking of experience to edit it. Could somebody help me to improve it?--Mark Chung (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator

My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac 1 5 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 01:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think nothing of it!

I appreciate your candor, but I held you at no fault whatsoever. Your stated agreement does help my mental state a bit, as I am a pretty bewildered editor. I know the facts of the article I am editing, but am MUCH less certain of procedure and policies regarded editing. I still don't know if I've "crossed the line" of Being Bold into "being a pest." But, again, thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me know if there is any mention of this in any RfC's filed against you. Obviously, as the "victim" I think it should be made known that I have no trouble with your actions. It was but a trifle, and you seem to have made a plan to prevent issues in the future. Done and done, I say. BigK HeX (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned Users

Just a friendly notice, per WP:BAN, socks of banned users, such as Lumberjake are not allowed second chances (except through Jimbo, the community, or Arbitration). Flameviper is banned. So, theoretically, giving this user a "second chance" is an obsolete concept. Cheers. miranda 10:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For you continuing work on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles Jeepday (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Card Games

Children's Card Games are a real genre of card games. Pheonex (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello, PhilKnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Zenwhat apparently has decided to mention you here. Not sure if you will dignify it with a response. BigK HeX (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you an admin? Anthon01 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthon01, yep I'm an admin. Also, I've volunteered to assist in the homeopathy article, by listing myself here.--Addhoc (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added calrification to the post on AN "

Added For clarity: Poll results are from the discussion that transpired on the RS/Noticeboard. because someone accused me of lying on my talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crosby Stills and Nash picture

Image:NashStillsGraceCrosbyCommons-1997.JPG, I'm confused. Was the image copyrighted? I thought it was from WP commons. Did I just assume that from the image title?--Knulclunk (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. The image claimed fair use and was here, not on the commons. Addhoc (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding recent events

Hey Addhoc. In trying to understand the recent dispute that spilled on to your and Zenwhat's talk pages, I ended up writing a lengthy set of remarks. You may wish to view them at Zenwhat's talk page - hopefully they clarify a few things (though they may already be clear to you). See them at Zenwhat's talk page: (talk page section) (diff).

If you don't plan to read my whole set of remarks (there are a lot of them), I would hope you consider at least these two (which were written for a broader audience than just yourself, and are included in my set of remarks at Zenwhat's talk page):

Addhoc's initial edit to the Wikiquette Alerts page (moving BigK's complaint from ANI), without noting that it was he who was moving it, as opposed to BigK adding it him/herself, caused a lot of confusion. It would be wise to note when a comment is being moved from fora to fora.
It would be have been wise for Addhoc to communicate with Zenwhat in a manner more conducive to communcation than edit summaries. If he had noted that DanielEng's comments which he removed were actually on DanielEng's talk page, I think a lot of confusion and disruption would have been averted.

Anyways, hope this helps. :) --Iamunknown 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't entirely agree. However, shortly after you posted here, Zenwhat apologized on WP:ANI.--Addhoc (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWT Mediation page

Addhoc: I did not request this mediation. But I have been made subject to it. I have responded promptly to all requests for information. The article page is, essentially, being held hostage. What is the status of mediation efforts on the NWT article? --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marvin, I'll reply on the mediation page. Addhoc (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: I have responded to your request on the NWT talk page. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: By now both you and Seddon69 must be beside yourselves with frustration over the dispute on the NWT article. I respectfully request that you insert yourself into the mediation process with more vigor by offering objective comment on Wikipedia policy in relation to all the published sources that have been provided for reviewing the dispute. I am not asking that a mediator take a side. I am asking for substantive and objective comment on Wikipedia policy in relation to the published sources offered throughout this dispute.

I am compelled to add, in case you have not already noticed it yourself, that only one editor has busied himself with the work of bring sources to bear in this dispute. I have worked hard to work this problem rather than just stirring it. But it is time for the NWT to cease being held hostage to personal opinions and to let published sources do the talking rather than editors.

As you know, Wikipedia cannot function as it is designed to function if articles are held hostage to personal opinion rather than letting the body of published world knowledge speak for itself. Editors are not here to write their own research, by inclusion or exclusion. Editors are here to express what we find in the world base of published knowledge that is demonstrated reliable by use in secondary sources. And, in this case, published information that is unchallanged by any published primary or secondary source. The only challenge is opinions from editors, and these have offered not a shred of support for their view from published sources despite having been asked to do so repeatedly.

Please let me know of any way I can assist in the way of offering source information. I am not looking for you or anyone else to take my side or anyone else’s side. I am looking for a mediator to comment on what matters, which is published information in relation to subject matter. Thanks. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock granted

Thank you. That'll teach me to avoid being proactive in heading off that particular vandal. Pairadox (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

HealthSphere page deletion

I would like some clarification please as to why this page was deleted. This page clearly indicates the importance of the services offered. Compare this page to HealthVault - they are basically the same. Please provide an example or hint as to what "indication of significance" should be included. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swb (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears the decision was to leave HealthVault's page up. Why is the HealthSphere page not given the same consideration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swb (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Concencus

Maybe if the page made more sense, we wouldn't have this problem. Pheonex (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I need help. I'm being driven to the point of no return: WP:ANI#Continued harassment ScienceApologist (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding arbitration injunction and scope

Hello! I have asked the committee about what the case all entails and we'll see what they say. Anyway, though, just so you understand where I'm coming from, when you look at the evidence (such as this) posted and the discussion underway, you'll see that those inolved have been treating the matter as if it is not just television characters, but rather fictional characters in general, including video game characters. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli-Palestinian collaboration

Greetings. Hopefully this won't require much by way of introduction, esp now that I saw the good ArbCom quote on your user page. I'm wondering if you'd considering joining the new wikiproject, WP:IPCOLL trying to quiet the battleground w/Is-Pal articles. We would benefit both from your experience and you (relative) neutrality, even if it's mostly a gesture of support at this stage, depending on your various time commitments. Thanks very much. Take care, HG | Talk 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Much appreciated. — Scientizzle 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

75.72.88.121

75.72.88.121 also has a registered account that has edited in this topic area. If enforcement is eventually applied to this user. check back with me to get his accounts as well. Thatcher 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ok, thanks for letting me know. Addhoc (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab Coord Call

There is a request here Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Can_I_help.3F that really needs a Coords answer. MBisanz ^talk 07:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Addhoc (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davies

Hi there. I received a message from you about the inclusion of controversal material. When you notified me, I was adding more references to the story. The story about Alan Davies biting the tramp was also reported on Sky news, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, Chortle.co.uk and the story also appeared in an episode of Have I Got News for You. Do these count as reliable sources? ISD (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ISD, The Times and The Telegraph are reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Does this mean I can therefore use them in the article without fear of their removal? ISD (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously content is determined by consensus, however I won't remove them. Addhoc (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. ISD (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Notaperm was/is Alan Davies, he should have said so when making the edits. I had no way of knowing otherwise.

I also had no idea we considered the Mirror an unreliable source ... as far as I'm aware, it's a published print newspaper, one of our usual criteria for such, published in a country with stricter libel laws than my own. I also note that on the article talk page, User:ISD has differed with this assessment, and noted that now the story has been published in other British newspapers and sourced it to them.

I won't reblock him, obviously, but I feel you're going out on a bit of a limb here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel wars are counterproductive, and yes I'm aware of that section of BLP and that's another good reason why I won't reblock him. But I would still like to see you show me some sort of consensus discussion somewhere that the Mirror isn't a reliable source. If it isn't, then shall we get rid of citations and the accompanying facts from The Sun and the News of the World as well? Is there a list of which British tabloids we shan't cite?

I mean, it was also my understanding of that part of BLP that it applied mainly to LPs (or anyone) removing unsourced libelous information, or anything from clearly unreliable sources like an anonymous blog. If there has been some discussion that the Mirror is not to be cited, I'd like to see it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I'm not sure how to respond. If I wanted to give an example of a source that obviously isn't reliable I would probably choose The Sun. I would consider The Daily Mail to be a below par source, while The Times is widely considered a reliable source. Addhoc (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

.:

RFA thanks

:.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers!

Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]