User talk:PhilKnight/Archive28

Award for Speedy Deletion

I notice that you are the king of speedy deletion. I put up an article on a software product that was labelled an advertisement even though it hat no links to the commercial vendor. Please engage with the author and help them get an article in to shape rather than just deleting it. I put several hours into the article only to have it deleted by you. What recourse do we have against self-appointed artbiters like yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrancois (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SurveyEngine.--Addhoc (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did - 4 comments, no-one read the journals or references and the final delete was by Chet Blong. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfrancois (talk • Leave the comment in ... please. You want to play arbiter and editor - then let us at least comment on that. contribs) 07:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Award

Thanks for the kind words. :-) east.718 at 21:02, February 22, 2008

Speedy deletion while a Hangon Tag was in place

The article you just deleted Gia Primo had an active hang on tag in place. The time between the delete and the placing of the tag was less then 5 minutes, meaning that there was no chance to place any hang on information on the article. In fact, this time the tag was not placed by the origional editor, but by me. This was the origional text i was "TRYING" to post.

Im contesting the speedy deletion of this article par WP:AGF and WP:Bite.

The creator of this article is actively working on it. The article was deleted as A11 as being an advertisement before. However, this is something that can be easily countered by removing thePeacock words from this article. Par previous discussion on my talk page, the article is deemed to have enough notability to be on Wikipedia.

Im willing to supervise this article to make sure that it won't violate the guidelines anymore. I'm requesting a deletion hold of about 3 days to make sure the article received enough time to be turned into a quality article. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, i would like to point you to this line on my talk page: Why have you de;eted it again ? Revert the page back and I will add more so called "notable info " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connortt9 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The origional editor is TRYING to make this a quality article, which should be enough to give him at least a shot at it. Perhaps WP:INSPECTOR kind of applies here. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, the above text sounds a little hostile i think. Sorry for that, be assured that i dont want to be hostile :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article history, which shows that you (correctly, in my humble opinion) speedy tagged the article 3 times in the last 2 hours, and the current version is only a marginal improvement. Regarding the hangon tag, I didn't see it, so possibly you could have added it, while I was selecting the deletion reason. Would it be ok to move this into your or the article creator's user space? Addhoc (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and move it into mine, i don't think that the original editor has been involved enough to get it pushed into his. Also, i agree that i would normally not have given this article deletion a second thought, but since this is a new user who is actually trying, i think i kind of feel sorry for him if his efforts just keep getting deleted. After two or so days i will just rewrite the article to make it more or less compliant with WP:BLP and WP:Notability. But for now, he can use it as a playground. Perhaps it will end up being a pretty decent article (Somehow). Also, thanks for restoring it, i appreciate that <:) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently voted in this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?
• Was the candidate Q&A beneficial in helping you choose to support the candidate?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat similar problem w/ Ahrensburg Culture as was the case w/ "Nordic" Article

Hi Addhoc,

I've been noticing that genetic info based on modern populations has been surfacing in archaeological and various other articles (linguistic, physical anthropological etc.) in a manner that is pretty much flat out POV or hasn't any real relevance to the topics. Case in point is the problem I had w/ the Ahrensburg "culture" article. Basically there is now a genetics section based on studies of modern populations that doesn't have any firm links to the culture in question. On my personal TALK page I'm trying to build a consensus regarding the proper use of this info. So I'm wondering if when you get a chance could you please visit the Arhensburg article and its discussion page, glance over it and tell me what you think on my discussion page? Any insight is greatly welcomed. Thanks

Geog1 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Geog1

I see you are a busy person. By any chance could you recommend another administrator whose focus may be on providing help and support on issues like these?

Geog1 (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

You could try asking Dbachmann, who has previously dealt with similar problems. Addhoc (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my page

Hi. Could you please tell me how my edits don't conform to the NPOV policy? Because theey do seem pretty neutral to me. Also, if possible, could Tennis expert be stopped; he is constantly reverting my edits without giving a reason, and all attempts to discuss the issue with him have been rebuffed. Thanks. Masha4ever (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits lack the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia, for example you indicated that Maria Sharapova‎ was 'plagued' by an injury - this would be acceptable in journalism, however in an encyclopedia article this is considered unduly sensationalist. Addhoc (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Swallow_(weapon)

Regarding to

• 14:19, 13 January 2008 Addhoc (Talk | contribs) deleted "Swallow (weapon)" ‎ (This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1).)

I like to know is though Swallow is considered a fictional double-bladed weapon type that appears in animes & games, but so far several sources much as Chrono Cross(Serge's weaponry). Final Fantasy(FF9 Zidane's weaponary), Pumpkin Scissors (long double-bladed cavalry sword called Mahne), God Of War II (The Spear Of Destiny), Ninety-Nine Nights (Myifee) and .etc. Don't you think there are people out there who wants to know what type of weapons are those? So shouldn't we create an article for it ? - daitiansg 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I suggest you write an encyclopedic article on this subject and include citations to reliable sources in accordance with the verifiability policy. Addhoc (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry about deletion of Punjab singer Resham Sunner

Hi Addhoc,

I added an article on Punjabi folk singer Resham Sunner. If you google him, there are over 800 sites with his material on those sites. Many of those feature his songs and albums. I did not have a chance to put up my own photographs of him in concert, but if a page of Manmohan Waris and Kamal Heer are allowed to exist, all of who Sunner performs with all the time, I wonder why his article was deleted. He is a real person, yes, he is a performer as well. His biography is not online, but his albums sure are. Thank you. Swarni1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarni1234 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Swarni1234, is there any media coverage? Or any other coverage in reliable sources? Addhoc (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gen-X

I'm sorry, I haven't logged on for almost a week. There has been no dialog between me and Cumulus Cloud at all and should not be closed. I'm not really sure how to proceed from here. What's the next step? Ledboots (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ledboots, I've reopened the case. Addhoc (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So, how does this get resolved, any suggestions? I'm not sure if mediation is the answer. The other party probably is unaware. Ledboots (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and close this mediation, thank you. Ledboots (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What Are You Thinking

I am a satisfied consumer with some facts that I displayed on a page. I don't know if you think deleting peoples work is fun but you should really stop doing it without even being brave enough to say it to my face. If you can give me ten real reasons to delete it then I will leave this matter alone. But if you can't then I don't think it really qualifies to be deleted outright. I can start doing the same thing and you know, i bet you wouldn't like it either. I'll be waiting for some real reasons to delete my page. In the mean time have fun deleting others' work —Preceding unsigned comment added by IhackW (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hangon

I see you do like deleting peoples work and just like you did to some others i think you should look and see the HANGON attachment that was put up a minute from when you deleted my page. It has context and if you had some other hobby rather than deleting otherpeoples work maybe you wouldn't have needed to delete it. You could simply have put on the talk page that you wanted me to change the page or you could even have done it yourself. I definetly will look at some of your pages that might need deletion. Please answer if you are not deleting another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IhackW (talk • contribs) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The second sentance was "If you are looking for a great place to buy a pet please consider Menagerie", so I think calling it blatant advertising was reasonable. Addhoc (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fanclub

They seem to love you! :D Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm so proud. Addhoc (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please

You just deleted my article, and really I do not understand why. I had provided some information and planned to edit/add the rest tomorrow. It is a legitimate article with references in existing articles. So I would like to ask you to reconsider and undelete. Please.ThanksChakopian (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You started the article with "The Letter G originated around 200 BC. Often referred to as The System of a Down of dance music", which appears to be nonsense. Addhoc (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Did you mean to encourage they topic ban for an article I haven't touched in weeks? Anthon01 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, you have made about 20 edits to the article, and nearly 500 to the talk page, so it's disingenuous to pretend the problem must be with your article contributions. Addhoc (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to be disengenuous. I have said almost nothing on that page over the past 3 weeks. I have for all intent and purposes become an uninvolved editor. If you review my infrequent comments over the past three weeks you will find absolutely no reason to ban me. If you intent to see me leave wikipedia, well I almost out of here already because of the asumptions made that an editor who defends with V RS the content of the page, automatically deserves to be banned. Anthon01 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there are problems with the excesses of fringe editors here but I am not one of them. Anthon01 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

More nonsense - you have made about 100 talk page edits to articles covered by the probation in the last 3 weeks. Addhoc (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No nonsense. From the 8th till now, I counted 46. I would estimate that the 46 is probably less than 20 as I am a poor editor and constantly have to correct my edits. If you want more proof I will go thought each edit and review minor edits to get a truer count. Of course this doesn't even take into account the quality of the edits. A number of edits before the 15th lead to this cooperative mainspace edit with Scientizzle.[1] He and I are able to work together [WP:CON]. This account for about 9 edits. Anthon01 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstood. I see you meant all pages covered by the ban. Ok I will count it all if you wish. But my edits have been greatly greatly reduced. I was talking about the homeopathy page as this is the topic of the AN/I. I use to make literally 100's of edits per week, preobably more. I have given up on getting balance on those pages. Anthon01 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I finally figured how you isolated talk pages. 100 talk page comments in just two day Jan 29th to Feb 1st.[2] Compare that to 100 comments in three weeks. As I said I am almost outta here. Anthon01 (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Tenby Davies Photos

Dear Addhoc

Many thanks for pointing out the lack of correct copyright information on the two images I’ve uploaded to the entry for Frederick Charles Davies. As a new user I’m still trying to find my way, so would appreciate any help you could give. The two pictures in question belong to Richard Davies in Australia, and it was he would kindly scanned them for me to use in the article. I do not think he knows who the original photographer was, and as he has created the digital images I would imagine he holds the copyright for these. He is happy for them you be used in the article in question. Perhaps you could tell me what I need to do to stop them being deleted?

Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Hello Lepidus Magnus, have a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.--Addhoc (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Addhoc

Thanks for this - do I take it that all I have to do is send a declaration for consent to Richard Davies and ask him to simply return it, after which I need to forward that e-mail to 'permissions-commons At wikimedia DOT org'? The only thing is I'm not sure which license I should put in the declaration. The plethora of different licenses is a bit daunting for a mere mortal like myself who's relatively new to all of this. Perhaps you could suggest the most appropriate one?

Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Hello Lepidus Magnus, yes that's my understanding. You could suggest using the {{GFDL}} license. Addhoc (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Addhoc

Many thanks indeed for stepping into the breach and holding off the deletion of the two Tenby Davies photos. I have e-mailed Richard Davies in Australia and am waiting for him to get back to me, so here’s fingers crossed! Thanks again.

Regards (Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Venkanna H. Naik

Thanks Addhoc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangi-tamma (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Thanks. Did you verify the documents for Naik? --Tangi-tamma (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangi-tamma (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think mediation would work at homeopathy?

Every compromise I suggest is rejected over and over and over. Every person who gives them an interpretation of NPOV has their interpretation rejected. I am just not optimistic...--Filll (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the main problem is gaming the system, and I'm getting to the stage where I think we should start handing out indefinite topic bans to the pseudoscience pushing editors. Addhoc (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do seem to be on the game, and pushing a very distorted view of NPOV based on a narrow reading of some of the wording. Anyway, what I came here to say was, nice variation on the Template:Welcomeg you added at User talk:122.167.8.128. Is there a template for that version that others can use? Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, the template is {{wm}}.--Addhoc (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's much more tasteful ... dave souza, talk 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, or if you have any handy tips for a freshly-hatched admin, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg

Can you please elaborate on your comment on why this image should only be used in the Church of Spiritual Technology article, at the deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_27#Image:ChurchOfSpritualTechnologyLogo.svg ? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding protection of IAR

I agree the protection was needed to avoid the edit war. But I would like to point out that one of the people involved in the edit war (User:Chardish)has made it clear that he "prefers" the page protected. I cannot help but think he got what he wanted by making edits he knew would be reverted.

It is not my intention to criticize your use of protection, but it does seem like there is a bit of gaming going on here. Perhaps I am too involved in the dispute to be objective though, so please form your own opinion. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Until(1 == 2), thanks for your comments. My own personal view is that I prefer temporary 1RR restrictions per day or week instead of blocks for long term edit warriors. However, I would prefer if the community could impose these restrictions without having to go through arbitration. Anyway, I understand your frustration, and for what's it worth, I don't intend to protect the page again. Addhoc (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I fear the problem will continue until someone chooses to block instead of protecting, as if often the case when the side that seeks change not accepted by the community prefers protection instead. It seems a bit contrary that the group that wishes the page to be changed wants protection but hey, it is a strange world. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP rules

Would I be within my rights to redact this edit on grounds of Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space? (i.e. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted"). It's just a blog repeating the same yarn, and what the TechDirt blog and its visitors think hardly adds anything useful to the situation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you consider it's dubious, then certainly remove it, however I would be cautious about exceeding 3RR over this. I'll leave a note for the new user. Addhoc (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

Please continue helping on the Sterling Jewelers Inc. page. User:Biodole is carrying out very insulting attacks on me in the article's discussion page, but being all civil and polite on the mediation page. I don't know what to do, and I'm really getting very tired of this very fast. Please, can you help? Thank you so much. Malachite84 (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Done

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For the great work involved in the rescue of Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Addhoc (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Using Words

Why did you delete the image I uploaded? That was not necessary to change the image back. I would have preferred to discuss the merits of both choices. Why shouldn't I go delete yours? It's silly enough to be deleted. Since when is a chupacabra a little green man from mars? Malevolentsteel (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If Shafer Oudeh drew the picture, then it isn't clear how you could own the copyright. I'll open a discussion on the image. Addhoc (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you protect people who make up quotes about me?

You have chosen to delete the concern that I expressed to Randy B because he made up out of thin air a specific quote and attributed it to me. Does this mean that you support such actions? Am I or others allowed to do that to you, and will you protect me if I do it to others? Nah, I didn't think so. Be a gentleman and please consider UNDOing yourself...and please re-establish my concern that I rightfully expressed. DanaUllman^Talk 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey...this is the first I've heard of this. As it turns out, I did incorrectly recall who labeled the entire molecular theory a "dogma of chemistry" which does not apply to homeopathy; it was Peter morrell. My apologies for that error. Here is the edit he made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=194604950 .

Now that I've admitted my mistake, will you admit that since you have several pro-homeopathy books on the market and thus possess a huge financial and cognitive interest in protecting the reputation of homeopathy at all costs, you are a classic WP:COI case who should never again participate in that article? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vladimir Putin official portrait.jpg

When you had removed other comments (in addition to removing of SD-templates), did you examine the Template:Kremlin.ru problem? Alex Spade (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex Spade, the problem is too complex for a speedy deletion - I think you have made the right decision by opening a discussion. Addhoc (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of what?

Is the template:Kremlin.ru free source or not? It's very funny after 10 months after its deletion.

Or do you want to discuss WP:FUC point 1 and conception "No non-free images of living personel"? Alex Spade (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)