User talk:PhilKnight/Archive7

Thanks for your message. If you can convince me that I am wrong as far as my understanding of wikipedia's policies is concerned, I will remove the link in question myself, if its included by a third party again, I will myself remove it again. But if you are convinced by my logic, please assure me that you will let sense prevail.

Let me state the obvious, Venu62 has had bad relations with me right from the start, but I know he is a good contributor otherwise, and he contributes mostly to articles that are about Tamil. There was a big dispute on the same Carnatic music article in the recent past where he was pushing for undue mention of Tamil music. Since I vehemently opposed it and made him withdraw from his POV pushing etc, he has an axe to grind against me. He would try to justify all his actions saying I'm a spammer etc, but I dont want to get into all that here. Though I dont have anything personal against him, he cant stand me and has constantly tried to pick faults with my edits and articles in particular, and I have not returned the favour yet.

Venu62's content contribution to Carnatic Music related articles is zilch (nothing substantial in any single article) as far as I have seen.

Some people are morons in just one aspect, and its hard to shake them off your back. They keep picking at you and make your life miserable to derive perverse pleasure in causing pain to others.

As regards Ncmvocalist and A4ay, their past contributions will make their intentions and their level of contributions abundantly clear. See their talk pages and edit histories. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to butt in as I'm being personally abused here again by Srkris. Let us get the full picture here. Srkris makes it as if I came to Carnatic music to pick fight with him. Far from the truth. In fact Srkris's initial contributions were limited to inserting links to his websites to hundreds of articles related or unrelated to carnatic music. I have been contributing to Carnatic music related articles for a long time. Here is a sample of articles and stubs I have created/substantially edited relating to Carnatic music. You can see the article history to verify my claim:

Regards Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Addhoc. I am Wikiwoohoo, deputy co-ordinator of the AMA. I wanted to extend my thanks to you for joining the AMA. Just a note, the association's current meeting is now on at AMA Meeting/December 2006. If you would like to comment on any of the ongoing discussion then you are very welcome to. I hope to see you around. Wikiwoohoo 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe I'm looking too hard for a connection here, but hear me out:

• The vandalism in the Rodney King article that Keltik31 reverted was left by anon IP 84.169.183.1*. * That IP originates from Wiesbaden, Germany on some searches, Amsterdam on another search, and Marina Del Rey, California on yet another search...so maybe I need to learn how to search IPs more accurately.
• There is a US Army garrison in Wiesbaden.
• Keltik31 admits to being in the US military here and here.

Coincidence? I don't know Keltik31's IP, so I can't confirm that they did this, but I think the chances of him knowing the person who vandalized the page for him to "revert" are good, if indeed Keltik31 is in the military.

The id "keltik31" gets 245 hits on Google. One of the main pieces of information I've seen in the hits are for a book/music/dvd seller shipping out of Delaware. The user name being so specific; I can't imagine it not being the same person. Maybe the seller is the wife, and the husband is the soldier/racist/anti-Semitic Holocaust denier/Wikipedia vandal? I dunno. Any thoughts? Does this info have a place in the RfC, as it's pretty much just speculation combined with pattern-seeking? -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) _{* I've left a warning on their talk page}[reply]

Completely agree with you, the anon only made a single edit and IMHO the whole thing was a set up for talk page trolling. That said, my understanding is the RfC is already successful, so we only need evidence of an ongoing problem and then we can take it to ArbCom and get him banned. Addhoc 20:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thought crossed my mind too, but I am very uncomfortable accusing a user of this kind of behavior without a checkuser result to back it up. That's why I removed it from the RfC page. If a checkuser request is made and shows they are the same, it should be re-added to the RfC, but per WP:AGF I don't think it should be there until then. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who noticed Keltik's reversion of the Rodney King vandalism, deleted his addition of it to the RK talk page, and listed it as disputed behaviour in the RfC. While it certainly crossed my mind that Keltik orchestrated the whole thing to backdoor a racist slur into Wikipedia, none of his other contributions suggest to me that he is subtle enough for that. I just think he took advantage of run-of-the-mill vandalism to backdoor a racist slur into Wikipedia. I revert vandalism every day, as do countless other editors. I have never before seen an editor copy the vandalism he reverted onto a talk page to explain that he had to remove it. I don't think that edit was made in good faith and I don't think he should be let off the hook for it. We don't need to prove that he put it in the article; we have an edit history that shows plainly that he put it on the talk page. - Eron 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the likely scenario. On the 9/11 talk page, Keltik31 questioned whether the attackers were terrorists. After another editor responded by saying something to the effect of terrorism is still terrorism, regardless of the motive, Keltik31 posted that Israel is a terrorist nation. I think he/she was trying to provoke a response (to the comment questioning if the attackers were terrorists) just so he/she could express his anti-Semitism. Any thoughts? --Db099221 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating for anyone. I was considering a block request because Matisse was not being civil. But I now won't pursue a block. I am just monitoring the situation. Geo. 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the RfC has clearly demonstrated a consensus that Mattisse's actions were not a violation of policy. Addhoc 12:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you trying to be a mediator on the Carnatic Music article or merely siding with some of the editors? If its the former, I dont see you are interested in establishing any understanding on the issue. You are taking a bird's eye view of the issue and forming opinions before discussion. This is unhelpful, its not going to resolve the dispute. First ask A4ay and Ncmvocalist to stop their edits there and ask them to behave. I am reverting the edits of these two who are not showing any maturity to engage in a productive discussion. See their total contribution history and their talk pages. Let me see whether you are able to first make them engage sensibly. Thanks. If you are not going to discuss properly the reasons for inclusion/exclusion of the link other than just linking to WP:EL and WP:COI, the mediation wont work. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that it may be best to delete the list. I do agree with you though, my sentence was inaccurate.GMS508 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in my honest opinion the article is biased in favour of Abrahamic religions and biased against the Dharmic traditions. Addhoc 00:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are right. But, I doubt that the bias is deliberate (though there are always exceptions) it is the result of individuals only being able to write on those subjects that they are familiar with. The advantage of Wikipedia is when you write crap someone challenges it or corrects. Thanks for jacking-me-up.--GMS508 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it to Ideogram, but s/he declined and suggested WP:MEDCOM or WP:RFAR. I am really unsure how to proceed. It seems people are just taking it into their own hands to start removing the copious linkspam, which is what needs to happen. I'm not even sure what can be resolved by mediation at this point, as the small group who are determined to defend the linkspam, even to the extent of harassing those who remove it, seem clearly in violation of WP policy. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you looking for recommendations for MedCab mediators who have experience of handling more challenging cases, I would suggest Ars Scriptor and Che Nuevara. Otherwise, it's a little known secret the coordinators sometimes take cases personally. (Is this page on their watchlists?) However, I personally think a RFAR would be a good idea. Addhoc 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recommendations. I've been a part of this situation as well so I've approached your two suggestions (Ars Scriptor and Che Nuevara) to see whether they might have some input. I guess I still hope that with proper mediation this could be resolved without going to WP:RFAR. If not, I guess we'll take that step. I'm a big fan of taking care of things at the lowest level possible (assuming it is possible.) We'll see. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• the decision seems to be that Mattisse, socks and Timmy12 were wrong to insist on citations - from a short time ago today.

[1] Is is O.K. for people to continue to speak of me this way? Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 18:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be concerned. The reality is that WP:V is a policy and discussion on a mediation page in the aftermath of the mediator being removed doesn't count for anything. Also, it's possible they didn't envisage the RfC would support your actions so unequivically and consequently, they are feeling a little insecure. Anyway, I would just leave it for now and let the situation cool down. Addhoc 18:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. I have been thinking all afternoon. I thought I understood WP:V is a policy but I am not sure anymore. If it is true that it is a policy, then all these discussions about me and the fact tags would not have been going on over and over again in various forums for the last four months. And the people who have been attacking me and the articles I create or edit (one tagged 39 of my articles in one day) would not be allowed to get away with it. I think I will not edit for a while until this is clarified. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc, User:Srkris's unreasonable attitude at Carnatic music needs some attention. He has been removing referenced passages unilaterally labelling them as 'impertinent'! He refuses to discuss and when there is an extensive discussion held a few weeks ago and a compromise reached on the text, he promptly goes and removes them anyway. I added citation needed tags to weasel word passages that were introduced without a shred of supporting evidence. Srkris promptly removes them. Can I please request this difficult user to change his behaviour? thansk Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Srkris had again reverted the passage on the Ancient South Indian music in Carnatic music which I had added with a number of citations. I have reverted to the last good version now. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know exactly what I am doing. Venu62's actions and history wrt the Carnatic music article will be clear if you can see Talk:Carnatic Music (go to the archives). We have had major POV pushers in the past for the same article whom I (and many others) had fended off successfully. Now Venu62 comes back to do his old work again. He has done the same thing unsuccessfully in the past and we have had a lot of disputes on this where his POV was exposed. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you deleted has been cited completely. Every sentense is cited. What is your problem with that? - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its rubbish. You have to give relevant citations. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which one do you term as rubbish? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but can you please [see this? It is getting rather tiresome dealing with these people with such a strong POV against any mention of the Tamil language in the article. Thanks.Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know... Addhoc 13:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that I have a 'POV' against Tamil or even any mention of Tamil in the article is plain and simply a gross misrepresentation of my stand. This misrepresentation of my stand by the above user has been going on for some time now and my GF has worn thin. From this point onwards, I can only attribute his actions to malice. I request you to sufficiently warn the user against indulging in such propaganda. Thanks. Sarvagnya 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, Adhoc, I just happened to see your warning to the new user Nrupatunga on his page. With all due respects to your contributions, I feel your warning to the new user amounts to biting and also doesnt AGF. For all we know, the user just made an edit as he saw fit. Just because that edit happened on a portion of the article thats disputed isnt enough excuse not to AGF. I request you to remove your warning template and maybe leave him a more personalised message. Warning templates are certainly no way to welcome new users to a community. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from what I saw the new user removed an image and replaced it with another image that was already present in the article. The message I posted merely recommended that changes should be discussed on the talk page. However, I agree that WP:AGF and WP:BITE are important. Addhoc 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure whether this is appropriate to mention but since you were/are an advocate in User:Mattisse's RfC I thought it best to draw your attention it. User:Hanuman Das is going to a series of talk pages where User:GBYork has left a comment and putting a label after the comment saying: This user was found to be a sock of Mattisse. There is no signature. This strikes me as rather extraordinary and excessive. I'm concerned, particularly since I've seen Mattisse is considering leaving Wikipedia for a while. My impression was that investigation had found that Mattisse had done nothing wrong in this matter? I guess technically Hanuman Das is not doing anything wrong by identifying Mattisse as the author, but it certainly feels like a punitive action. I don't know if I'm asking you to do anything. It just feels nasty to me. I happened to catch this because I have pretty much all of the Starwood link pages on my watchlist. If they were all done as a series block (I haven't looked at all of them but they are one after the another), there are 27 talk pages in a row this was done to. I swear I think I'm in high school. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it is high time this past manipulation by Mattisse was pointed out. The whole current situation was created by Mattisse using sockpuppets. Nobody had any intention of putting external links on any of the pages until Mattise used multiple sockpuppets to create an illusion that there was stronger support for her position than there was. This is specificly mentioned on WP:SOCK as being an abusive use of sockpuppets! She has never admitted to wrongdoing or apologized to anyone she used the socks against. I think she still thinks she was justified and I am not convinced that she has given up the use of socks, though I would be the first to admit there is no proof of that. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ekajati, in future could you avoid posting on my talk page. Thanks... Addhoc 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a note was left for you here. Not a dog 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll request that another mediator gives a second opinion... Addhoc 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there is a pretty solid consensus about the topic of that mediation. The current dispute is the face that Miracleimpulse isn't able to understand why his photos are up for deletion. Not really the same issue. Anyway, glad some other editors might get involved. Not a dog 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Miracleimpulse being blocked, is another mediator still required? Addhoc 15:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that other admins are involved we might be ok. Although I'm concerned the block might even infuriate him more, and that he might just create a different account (as he's done elsewhere). Or, perhaps this will calm him down. We'll see... Not a dog 15:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc,
Hopefully the latest here means {{Europe in topic2}} now not needed; please confirm whether or not you'd be happy for me to delete it. (Have updated the "Buddhism in" articles.)  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be ok. Thanks, Addhoc 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done!  Thanks, David (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Addhoc,

Why the rv of my rv and then rv self on the Mount Rushmore article? As you can see from my contribs I am trying to be positive in reverting vandalism, hardly adding to it ! Pete Orme 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, entirely my fault, was attempting to revert the vandalism you had already reverted. Keep up the good work! Addhoc 12:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - I see that now on the edit history. I will keep fighting the good fight. Thanks ! Pete Orme 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified my comment regarding social policy on my questions page; you may well still disagree with my position, but at least you'll be disagreeing with a clearer statement of it if you care to read it. I actually think we agree, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sugaar's question was essentially what's better: strict discipline or strict adherence to the letter of policy. Your position on this scale is slightly to far towards strict discipline for my liking. Addhoc 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If I do get appointed, I think you'll be pleased at the balances I will strive for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are my Advocate, perhaps you would give me some advice. I am wondering whether to ask a question on the new Talk:Starwood Festival/mediation now opening. Specifically, I was looking at the Philip H. Farber article and wondering about the 3 internal links (plus 2 external links) to Rosencomet. Since the internal links are to three different Rosencomet parent articles: Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration, do they count separately or together? My question to you is this (it's a political question):

1. Should I just stay out of it now as a person who causes more trouble and distraction to the process and let others take care of it?
2. Should I weigh in because if I don't I lose the right to have a say? (I was advised previously this might be the case on the first Starwood mediation, as I initially stayed out of it.) Plus am I expected to or not? I can't tell.
3. Should I stay out of it because I start to feel sick to my stomach and get anxious about what might happen if I do stick my nose in? (I think this was the article that when I AFD'ed it originally provoked 999 into retaliation.)
4. Should I weigh in because the last comment indicates that I've lost my bearings, am taking everything way to seriously and need to get over all my fright and act normal?

This is a true request for advice, asking the benefit of your political judgment and tact as I seem to lack both. So I am not asking what my rights are or anything like that. I am trying to figure out how normal people act around here without causing all the ruckus I seem to. And I do not want to cause more trouble or hinder anything. But, also, I don't want to get stuck being nervous about everything I do as I am now. (Be Bold!) Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, clearly the amount of internal and external links is excessive. Regarding your question:

1. No, the users who have introduced these links, instead of explaining their actions, are being hostile in response.
2. Regarding mediation, I would suggest you shouldn't consider that your involvement is expected. You have notified the wider community of the problem and beyond this you don't have any obligation. Mediation isn't usually a long winded debate, more often the discussion is lead by the mediator. Accordingly, if you want to be involved then a short note on the mediation page would be sufficient.
3. I am concerned about your stress levels. Even if you aren't involved there are other editors who understand the problem. Regardless of your decision, I would suggest you avoid debating the problem.
4. No, however if you decide to be involved then, I would suggest you post a short note on the mediation page and then wait for CheNuevara to start the process.

Thanks, Addhoc 11:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That helps. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 13:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to bring this to your attention. If'd you'd like to discuss, let's do it on User talk:CheNuevara, okay? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't appear to have reliable sources and consequently, I've prodded it. Thanks for letting me know... Addhoc 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what I am being accused of. Asking Paul Pigman a question is wrong? I'm sorry, I don't understand. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 22:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused myself. The interpretation of your posting is somewhat extreme and hopefully the consensus of admins are going to recognize that. Addhoc 23:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you probably know that one of the people involved just sent me a message, could you explain to me what he is saying? And I don't feel comfortable leaving messages here anymore. After this I will only reply by email. I did not understand all this watching everyone does until today. Thanks. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be preferable to use email in future. Regarding your question, I gather that Ars Scriptor is merely clarifying that he has posted a request for other admins opinions on the incident notice board. Addhoc 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not doing any good. Your explanations are too general to be helpful to me. It is just pointing out to me how much I do not understand snf never will. Today I looked at a post on the complaint that is against me now and saw a link to a talk page of mine that I can't even find. This is a waste of your time. So I formally withdrew my request on the AMA form. Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I removed my email address as I don't want to hear from anyone. Hope you understand. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 13:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All over the centuries gelugpa school has been major school in Russia and ofcourse the first one but someone has wrote such a falsification hier . Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I've edited a few Buddhism articles, but I'm not sure which article you're referring to. Could you be slightly more specific... Addhoc 13:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail, please respond if you have time. --Ars Scriptor 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I mistakenly asked for wikibreak. I did not mean to do so. I just want to withdraw from the Advocacy program as it has made things worse. I wanted to learn about how to use Wikipedia but I learn only accidently when you have made a comment or intervened and I am not learning your rationale. And there are probably many comments I don't know about and would have to hunt around to find. So I am not learning much from that. Ususally if I see a comment by you it is way after the fact so I miss its impact. You made one on my talk page and that was effective but it doesn't help me for the future.

Right now I need to use diffs and watchlists, and other things that I don't know enough about. I don't understand the terminology and I was hoping you would help me. I was also hoping you would guide me more. I need someone who can relate to me more in my terms. You assume I already know things. When I asked you to explain Ars Scriptors comment, your reply was not helpful. (I don't even know what his role is supposed to be -- just that he makes me an object of ridicule in Mattisse Redux - which I guess he thinks is clever.) I ask you for some real feedback via email but I did not gotten anything helpful. Instead I was lulled into a false sense of security and now I am in worse shape than before. If I just spend my time writing and editing there is always trouble brewing in the background for me. I find it strange that no one ever looks into what has actually happened or what I have actually done. They just go by what other people say. Those who are clever with diffs etc. have the upper hand. No one has actually looked at facts. Advocacy appears to be a feel good thing and that only makes things worse in the situaion I am in. I think it is better if I go it alone. I thank you for the effort you did put in and if you know of a method that would be more helpful to me than advocacy maybe you will recommend it. And please take me off wikibreak if that is my status now. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed my email because you were not sending me anything useful via email, and it is a stress to always be checking it as I don't normally. I will put it back if anything useful will come of it. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email asking that you reinstate yourself as my Advocate. Will you consider it? I know my behavior toward you has not been appreciative or even polite. It was rash and ill considered. Please allow me to apologise. This is part of what I have to get over -- following my first impulse to bail out and withdraw and go into myself and just do rivers and dams and hydro-electric projects. So I would like to try again if you are willing. Please reconsider. Sincerely, Mattisse 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you do become my Advocate again, I just left this message on the Starwood Mediator's page:

In the interest of full disclosure, another Starwood article has been discovered written by one of my suspected sockpuppets: [2] Sincerely, Mattisse 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that was the right thing to do. It seems to me that any such articles lurking around should be disclosed. (Maybe I'm wrong about that.) Sincerely, Mattisse 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "the swastika predates Hinduism." Of course this pre-dates Hindu Dharma. It was used first by the ancient Indians who would later become Hindu and then peoples in Iran, Mid-East, Europe and the Americas began using this. The swastika was an important symbol to Hindu Dharma and so Shri Gautam Buddha used this as his symbol. By the way, the wheel on the Indian flag is not the wheel of Gandhi, that wheel was replaced with this. The chakra has always been a symbol of India and Hinduism - Maleabroad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.32.72 (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Could you go into more detail about what you find insufficient about my RfA answers? Perhaps another question?

• I really do want the mop to clean up RM and to look at deleted articles without bothering busy users.
• Those are the accomplishments I am most proud of; what would you find more moving? Maybe I've done it.
• I've quarrelled with six users in a year and a half. Three of them are banned for obnoxiousness (User:Zephram Stark, User:Rose-mary, the sock of Irismeister who tried to get Gator1 fired, and an anon incarnation of User:Iasson); one of them is now blocked; and two support me. Many admins have done worse. Septentrionalis 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, firstly, this isn't about whether you are nice, decent, honest Wikipedian - you very obviously are. However, your answer to Q1 was slightly uninspiring. Personally, I don't consider requested moves to be a big deal. I hold the view that Wikipedians should be mature enough to agree consensus and to move pages without supervision. That's probably just me though. Also, yes I kinda assumed that you and every other sensible Wikipedian issues vandal warnings and reports them. So I guessed that you would block them, instead of reporting, because to be honest, that's obvious. Really the minimum would be to indicate that you would help clear the backlog at AIV when it gets busy. Also, what about saying that you have enough experience of the deletion process to close AfDs? Or just saying that you would monitor the backlogs and help out with the most urgent? Finally, if you understand the mysteries of US copyright law, you could help out with image deletions. Also don't bother saying "I would let others change the culture of Wikipedia by administrative action", in reality most new admins take a while before they have much influence.

Your answer to question 2 was better, if you had written several featured articles, that would be impressive, however nothing wrong here. On the other hand nothing to convince me that you definitely should have more buttons.

In fact, I had a substantial part in the final polishing of Macedonia (terminology), now on the main page; but it wasn't as much fun as the earlier stuff listed; but since it's topical, I will add it. Septentrionalis 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer to question 3 should have explained why you went over 3RR. Also, your list of Wikipedians that you've crossed swords with appears to be incomplete - judging by the oppose voters.

Cross swords with? No. Disagree with a position I've taken? Yes. Cyde, for example, disagrees with many positions I've taken, and I don't think he should have been promoted; but it's not something I've ever felt stress over. He's never picked on anything I value; just other people. Should question 3 be reworded? I answered it as it was written. Septentrionalis 22:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps... Addhoc 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Septentrionalis 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It has gone beyond the ridiculous in this article. If a blocked user User:Srkris can continue to abuse and vandalise WP, then there is no stopping anyone from doing anything. See: [3], [4], [5], [6]. He is still insisting that the references I have are fake without giving any reasons for claiming so. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I've requested the article should be semi-protected. Addhoc 23:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Addhoc, I'm mediating the Starwood case. It seems to me that so far Mattisse has declined to involve herself in the mediation, although she has responded to a few comments left by others on my talk page. I'm not interested in taking action against Mattisse or any other user; I'm only interested in ending the content dispute. I would appreciate it, however, if you would let me know what your view on the Mattisse / alternate accounts, Mattisse / Hunaman Das - Ekajati, and Mattisse / Rosencomet issues are. It would be a great help to me.

Thanks a lot!

Peace. - Che Nuevara 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you're not comfortable discussing someone you're advocating for publicly, you can contact me per e-mail, and I promise not to disclose any information under any forum, including here. - Che 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]