User talk:PhilKnight/Archive17

A couple thoughts and suggestions at Template talk:Prod-nn Jeepday (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc I am extremely disappointed with the speedy deletion tag you attached to the ASG entry supposedly because the article is blatant advertisement. I was at a loss of words when I saw this tag attached to that entry. After thinking for 10 minutes the only thing I could possibly think of that might explain your rediculous assertion is that perhaps the nod to the presidential blog ruffled your feathers? However, upon further inspection I do not believe it is that either. I am not sure what your reasoning is but I honestly think you need to seriously reasses the way you vett Wiki entries because whatever your system may be currently, it is clearly not fair or objective and is dangerously flawed.--CarsonG 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really watch Wikipedia:Requests for adminship so don't know if this has been suggested before, but I was rather surprised to see your not an Admin yet. I took a look at User:Addhoc at Interiot edit count between it and what I have seen from bumping into you here and there, I would think you would be a fine candidate for Adminship. I would like to nominate you for Adminship, would be willing to accept the nomination? Jeepday (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! Addhoc 10:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc: Would you mind if I removed your prod from this page? I believe I can fact-check it (using the battle's other name, Albulena). Jlittlet 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know about the alternate name. Addhoc 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, that's old tag. I have fixed that.--OsamaK 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wouldn't support you!!! LOL. I remember reading a certain POV-warrior editor claimed that my quoting you on my user page was "abusive" or something like that. I hope you take it as a compliment. I love your quotes (although I'll have to admit to resorting to some of those type of comments at times). Good luck on your RfA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And stop checking the update counter, you're going to sail through it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Told you. Congratulations!!!!. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK

Why did you delete my post and without even responding to let me know how you feel? 68.47.102.75 11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop posting on my talk page? Thanks, Addhoc 11:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc. I'm having an issue with a user who calls himself Stormin' Forman. He keeps undoing my comments on Highlander the Source talk page. I feel that my comments are inline with what other users are saying, but he keeps telling me "This is not a forum". Feel free to drop me a message on your thoughts: User:Kageskull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.54 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - talk pages should only be used to discuss how to improve the article. Addhoc 13:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks addhoc, for providing those references in the Kattankudi Mosque Massacre article. I really appreciate your help. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=
 PS Please add you name to WP:LA!

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Now do I have to remove your quotes from my user page?  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and congratulations. You have my full confidence.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always support editors with such well-worded userpages. ;) Jokes aside, I think you'll make an excellent admin. If you need help with anything, I'm just a message/e-mail away (and I usually respond quickly). Congratulations once again mate! · AndonicO ^Talk 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So glad to see you in the admin club, I believe wiki will be a better place for it. Sethie 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and congrats on being an admin.--JForget 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Good luck and welcome to the most popular(!) club in Wikipedia. Seriously, though, let me know if you have any questions. Best, Neil ム 08:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about your blocking of this account. It seems to me three (possibly teen?) friends got accounts and were messing around, mostly with each others pages. The others being User:LeavesKittun and User:D-link69. However, LindseyPanda didn't make any edits after her last edit. Sure, their edits were misguided, but not nearly in the same league as the wilful vandals that we have. Would you reconsider the block? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timotab, I've reduced the block duration to 24 hours. Addhoc 06:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to grab ArielGold when she's awake and see if the two of us can't politely educate these people into becoming good editors. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 06:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for providing some good references to the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, your positive edits instigated a big improvement in the article NëŧΜǒńğerPeace Talks 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I am very glad to see you've done so well. Happy editing! Lradrama 13:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, admin! Be good. LaraLove 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations new admin :) Jeepday (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, it is. however, Joe Morgan's page has the same. The contributor of that page says it is legal. I will restore Sandbergs photo until Morgans is also deleted if they are not legal.... if they are legal, leave it alone.Wjmummert 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I uploaded the image, I explicitly included the statement that I had Dan Crow's permission to use it. Why was it deleted with the claim that there was no such assertion of permission made? --Kaz 00:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Addhoc 06:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a speedy delete template was transcluded onto the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy roster. Is it possible to put that back? The template was to be deleted, but it was still referenced in the roster page. Greg Bard 11:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good save. I have removed some others that may have triggered a speedy delete. I will be more careful with those transclusions. Thank you. Be well, Greg Bard 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc,

Can you see the Ajax-browser page, and look at the edit summary. I noticed that if the deletion was really need, the article may be move to my user sub-space, allowing me to improve this draft, and to look for more sources.

thanks, Yug (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've move the article to User:Yug/Ajax-browser - good luck with improving the article! Addhoc 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught sight of this user: User:Pyro™. I'm thinking it's inappropriate; not the name of a company but due to the special characters. Not sure enough to report to UAA though. Is it okay? -WarthogDemon 16:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if the editor started promoting the Pryro company that would be objectionable, but otherwise I don't personally have a problem with the choice of user name. Addhoc 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just reverted his edit here for adding linkspam to a forum, which was added before you welcomed him.--Old Hoss 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for my support in you RfA: I'm glad it passed! :) Acalamari 18:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin has expressed an intention to publish unsubtantiated, inflammatory claims which will be to the detriment of a patient community, from an unreliable source on the Simon Wessely page. Another editor, Suzy Chapman, and I have been trying to illustrate how unreliable the source is and how unsubstantiated the claims are. We have been providing copious evidence and plausible arguments as to why, but it feels we are running around in circles. Then another editor has come in expressing a determination to remove our comments on the TALK page as ‘irrelevant’. Granted the comments are lengthy, but this is the case in other Wikipedia talk pages also.

We’ve also been implied as engaging in 'spurious arguments' which I think is an inaccurate and perjorative comment, and other rather adversarial comments which we‘ve had to rebut, reasonably. Now an unregistered user is backing MastCell and -well- acting as if he or she has some air of authority (!) to the point I thought they were an Admin! Granted I'm inexperienced at Wikipedia, and have often felt bullied in past forays into the set-up. I have joined specifically to rectify the above problem, because I am a patient advocate and what is being proposed will cause immense problems for that community(I have undertaken,in good faith, NOT to edit the encyclopedia page because I have a conflict of interest, being a known critic of the claims and actions of the subject, Simon Wessely). I've tried to do things the Wikipedia way.

Another problem is that MastCell called me a sock puppet of another editor when I joined. JFW, an admin who I am in conflict with regarding the issue, nevertheless asked MastCell to apologise in good faith. This has never happened, and his stated determination to remove people's posts from the talk page indicates to me urgent action needs to be taken in the form of a mediation review etc.

The reason for the long posts in any case is because we’ve been trying to establish the reasons NOT to publicise unreliable information.

I don't know if I can adequately convey the potential serious ramifications of this situation. IF this publication of unsubtantiated, inflammatory claims which will be to the detriment of a patient community, from an unreliable source, goes ahead, the reputation of Wikipedia, Simon Wessely himself and possibly the Gibson panel may be severely damaged, because public calls for full verification will have to be made by the patient community, and Wikipedia's determination to publish unsubstantiated, inflammatory claims from unreliable sources will be evident. Jim Wales has been aware of the problems around this page, and even though he has not been supportive of my position in the past, we have been in direct correspondence before and I think he should be made aware of this problem as soon as possible. In any case this page needs careful investigation urgently, because the ramifications of this are beyond Wikipedia and could damage Wikipedia's reputation: but I'm trying to go through the 'correct channels' here in good faith. Angela Kennedy 23:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angela, have you considered posting your concerns on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Addhoc 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc again. Not sure if it would help. This here [1] is on the Admin Noticeboard about me. What can I say? It's a gross misreprentation of my work, but hey, they're admins. By the way- look at my user page if you like, but you should also see my talkpage. Angela Kennedy 23:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now that your an admin you'll be getting a lot of these. I was just wondering what exactly the MEDCAB coordinators do--Phoenix 15 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If everything is running smoothly, then very little beyond updating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Opentask.--Addhoc 20:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Phoenix 15 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I feel it right to give you a barnstar to begin your promotion to be one of the bosses here on Wikipedia. Great edit count and very good record. I like it. Laleena 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I mean thanks, Laleena! Addhoc 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you replace the page with the welcome, not add it at the bottom? —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to delete the {{hangon}} tag and obviously deleted more than was necessary. Thanks for raising this. Addhoc 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks PhilKnight/Archive17
	I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.
	Regards, nattang 04:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]