User talk:PhilKnight/Archive34

Page down

I was building a new page regarding a new website product called HOAwiki. Then you took it down before it was complete. I have many edits to include on this page. This is a new product, never before offered. Please allow me to show this product for what it is, a new way to use wikis with a new kind of pricing.Maryluke (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation update

I wanted to inquire about the status of the Generation X page. After the article lockdown for some time, it is now unlocked with a complete absence of addressing the complaint. That will likely invite another edit war. Are you going to make some kind of judgement call as part of the process? If not, the whole process seems pointless. Ledboots (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Help

Hi, I saw you listed as a "mentor" on the mediation cabal page. I have (recklessly?) adopted the case on the (Republic of) Ireland. It's about the article name - there is no edit war going on, but the editors seem to discuss the case over and over without ever coming to an agreement. I'd like to ask an experienced opinion, especially since I'm not sure whether the case warrants mediation - several key people are opposed to the idea. However, everybody seems to hope that the discussion can be ended, and keep pouring stuff into the discussion. So if you could give me your opinion, I'd be happy for the help. You can contact me via mail or the talk page. Thanks in advance. Averell (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Averell, thanks for taking this case! I think your comments about whether mediation is going to be of any help in resolving this disagreement explains the situation very well. I would suggest keeping the case open for a while, to allow the discussion to continue. Also, if the discussion becomes unnecessarily personal, it could be helpful to politely intervene and steer the discussion back to the subject at hand. Lastly, you could suggest organising a request for comment, if the discussion doesn't reach a consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with an article edit.

I in good faith and in honesty tried to edit an article to better explain a perspective. Another user named Hunter, has repeatedly deleted my edit and has reported it as vandalism however it does not fit any criteria for being vandalism. I was always under the opinion that wikipedia is based on community edits and alterations for the better of all. I am very hurt that I am being singled out and am being rejected as a part of this community. I have talked with the other user, and I have been unable to reach an agreement with them. I am now blocked from editing any pages on wikipedia. Can you please help me resolve this issue, as it is not just me being affected by this but every other user who would like to edit and cant because one member of this community feels they are superior and in control of all revisions. The article I am referencing to is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Acceptance_of_Wiccans I edited this article to say that claims of wiccan satanic rituals and murders are unfounded, I base this upon the fact that a basic and essential principle of being wiccan is "And it harm none, do what you will" as well as the fact that Wiccans do not believe in or worship the christian figure known as Satan. Hunter argues that there is ambiguity here when there is not. Just as a christian can not be christian when they do not believe in or worship Jesus Christ, A wiccan can not be considered to be following Wiccan principles or acting on behalf of Wicca when they actively engage in the harming of others. I have edited this page anonymously the ip I have edited from is 24.159.186.200. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.186.200 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

CONTINUATION: Thank you so very much for your help in this matter. I am greatly appreciative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.186.200 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Delighted that I could help. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous message

Hello Phil, I have left a message for you previously but I am not able to find it anymore. Also I don't see any response from you to that message. Anyway may be the old message does not matter now that you have sent welcome instructions. Will try to follow the wiki editing guidelines but please do bear with any errors and hope that this page will no longer be viewed as an advertisement. Any help from you will be appreciated. Best wishes Bonhomie1 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

PhilKnight/Archive34, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks once again! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note to say thank you for merging the Republic of Wexford into the Wexford Rebellion page. Thanks. Alanmryan100 (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

You protected List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes and then immediately unprotected it. Why? -- Elaich ^talk 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the context of List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 6 episodes being protected, I'm guessing that Particleman24 won't continue his edit war at List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, good. Thank you for protecting that page. I redirected it to the main list of episodes article, probably right before you protected it. -- Elaich ^talk 06:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The disappearing block

Er... if you don't mind my asking, what's this, [1] [2] ? It popped up on my watchlist, and looked a little unusual. Was the user told about this block? Bishonen | talk 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, I was responding to a request at WP:RFPP, and my initial reaction was that it would be preferable to block the user. However, this was based largely on the misconception that he was under a general editing probation. After checking, and realizing it was only a behavioral probation, I unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

MedCab cases

I was looking through the MedCab Cases needing mediators and checked out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-21 Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. I noted that there was no interaction between the named parties since the date it was listed, so I contacted PollShark to confirm that there was no longer need for mediation. He confirmed this. I've made an administrative note. What is the usual process for closing MedCab cases? Sunray (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I (partly) figured out the answer. I changed the template on the case page to "closed." The only thing is that the Cases needing mediators page still lists it as open. Do I also remove it from that page? Sunray (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another question: To pick up MedCab cases, do I need to register anywhere? I have done a fair amount of informal mediation in my time at WP, but I'm wondering if I can say "I'm from MedCab" (to the participants in the dispute) if I see a case I think I might assist with? Sunray (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've answered all my questions. Those are the easiest ones to respond to, no?  ;-)

Asking for help on this

• List of ABC owned and affiliated television stations, arranged by state

On the top paragraph I added "and Designated Market Area in parentheses when the COL is different then the DMA." The reason for this is this list is based and so are others by State on City of License. But COL can be different then Designated Market Area. For instance if you go down to Florida on the above site and look at WJXX Orange Park you will see in brackets (Jacksonville). Orange Park is a suburb of Jacksonville. Orange Park is the COL Jacksonville is the DMA. I wanted to add the above line to the sentence to clarify this because sometimes the COL is different then the DMA. Please give your opinion when its available.

This is how I think the info on this page should be provided. " This is a listing of NBC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license and Designated Market Area in parenthesis when the COL is different then the DMA.

This is how another editor thinks it should be leaving out the fact that any stations DMA is already provided in brackets. " This is a listing of NBC's affiliates, arranged alphabetically by state, and based on the station's city of license." Oak999 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments from the Television Stations Wikiproject talk page:

"...The line about DMA clarification is not necessary. That is why there are TWO lists for each Big Four network -- the state-by-state list(s), and the market-by-market table(s). The state lists are arranged by City of License; the second city is there for the casual reader -- not necessarily the TV junkie -- to identify the larger city the station serves. The market tables get more technical with the full DMA names and links to the market templates. That stuff is absent from the state lists, and there is no reason to add an additional line about DMA."

These are my reasons, and I'm sticking to them. There is no problem here except in Oak999's mind. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Marty Turco

Hi PhilKnight, thanks for taking care of Marty Turco for at least a month. I was trying to find a 'clean' version of the article, but had a bad time getting one through. Thanks! -- Bakabaka (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Midnight

You tagged it protected but didn't protect it!! Thanks, —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Generation X

I'd written previously to ask that Generation X be unprotected and you quickly obliged. I may have been in haste as it appears that whatever "edit wars" that were occurring previously have possibly returned. Any attempts to source the material in question is continuously reverted by User:Cumulus_Clouds. A semi-protect or full protection may be best until whatever issue there is, is resolved. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to clean it up as long as S/He is still disrupting the article. 24.98.135.148 (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

I can't find your other vote. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the good faith correction

Thanx...but you can look at my new posting here.[3] My point here is that because your previous misunderstanding of 2 of my edit summaries seemed to have a big impact on an Arb committee member, does it make any sense for you to alert the Arb committee members who have already vote of your retraction, just in case it had a similarly large impact as it did on one member. Thanx for your consideration. DanaUllman^Talk 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Enric Naval made a suggestion here.[4] I could certainly do what he has suggested, though it seems that it would be more proper if you choose to do this. Could you let me know if this makes sense to you? DanaUllman^Talk 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also the mailing list email: arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org - you could send them an email using this. PhilKnight (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems Dana has contacted all the arbs who have voted so far on their talk pages, and has been misrepresenting things a bit (not Dana!). He asserts that your retraction is proof that he has never mislead anybody, especially in edit summaries! This must be the exception that is the rule. There's probably some homeopathic principle (an oxymoron?) at work here but I can't fathom it. I jest. But seriously, I think Dana is misrepresenting what happened slightly, and no doubt you are aware but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Keep up the good work Adhoc! Your humble servant, James (I'll get an account as soon as I get work to unblock WP) --68.46.109.163 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that James is one who is misleading here. Be careful of this guy. I thought that I characterized the situation accurately, though if you feel otherwise, I assume that you'll let me know. DanaUllman^Talk 21:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden page

Thank you for your help on the Dorje Shugden article. I have submitted a request to get the page semi-protected. I think the page is going to be highly vandalized and changed drastically in the next couple days if it is not. Thanks Wisdombuddha (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322

Revert-warring on Hindu terrorism.Chiefofall (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR Admin Posting

FYI: --Firefly322 (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Chenyangw_reported_by_User:Cumulus_Clouds_.28Result:_Stale._.29

Hindu terrorism

There seems to be an organized attempt by User:Josh Keen and User:Firefly322 to try and rehash an old issue long resolved by consensus, that of labelling the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh as a "Terrorist" group. This was decided long ago by consensus to not be the case [5]. Nonetheless, both users seek to disrupt wikipedia to make a point and constantly tag-team revert over this [6][7]Chiefofall (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

William Kent Krueger Image

I've just written to William Kent Krueger for explicit permission. If this pic gets deleted his permission will come attached to a url that doesn't exist. I'm trying to follow recommendations, but there's seems to be an extraordinary haste to delete this picture. If there's a deadline for a reply, could you let me know what it is? Burntfingers (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey PhilKnight. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

my RfA - Ta!

Gwen gleans, wending keen by the wikirindle.

Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism AfD

I've added quote on Noam Chomsky that addresses your original concerns about defintion. Would you please now withdraw your AfD nomination. Sincerely, --Firefly322 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Firefly322, I suggest you reconsider my earlier offer about moving the article to Nepal Defence Army.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Knight, I actually have no scholarly interest in the N.D.A per se (that's the other guy and his or her wikipedia contributions). My interests have been in researching and writing up Hindu terrorism. Given the stature of Noam Chomsky as an available references on the defintion of Hindu terrorism, the earlier lack of which was given as cause for AfD, wouldn't the reasonable action to now take to be to withdraw the AfD nomination? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism

PhilKnight, I moved Wikipedia:Nationalism to User:PhilKnight/Nationalism per WP:PG#Essays, in that they need to reflect a common consensus on WP that there is pro-American/British bias. Finding no such consensus, it needs to be regulated to a userpage and out of Wikipedia namespace until such consensus can be derived. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 01:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I started this essay with the intention of encouraging other editors to improve and expand it. Accordingly, I would prefer if it wasn't moved to user space. PhilKnight (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that you will convince the majority of WP editors, or even a fraction, that such consensus exists that WP is wholly biased for pro-American/British in every basic aspect. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the essay - it appears to be causing some confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just for a minute assume that there is pro-American bias on Wiki. The chances, in those circumstances, of getting 'consensus' that there is pro-American bias are - what? Zero? Sarah777 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, any issues that I had with the essay has been resolved. Cheers, seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)