User talk:PhilKnight/Archive18

Question
I admit that the how all of this works is beyond me but I havea group of friends that I think understands it works. My question to you is why was the entry about the flickr photo group DBOLRL deleted by a person called user 57.

Thank you for your time.

1biscuits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1biscuits (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The DBOLRL article was deleted because Number 57 thought it lacked indication of importance or significance.--Addhoc 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Umar Alisha Sahithi Samithi
Dear sir i have found that the article has been deleted i request you to reconsider for retaining the article

reasons for retaining 1) this is an organization started 15 years ago 2) non profit organisation 3) this organisation works for the upliftment of the literary works in Telugu and Hindi 4) this organisation has conducted literary seminars every year and honored many scholars all over India 5) this is started in the name of the great poet Kavisekhara Dr Umar Alisha . you can even find several references in the article to show his notability 6) in a few days i would be able to support with news paper cuttings of the literary seminars conducted by this organisation kindly do consider for retaining it

regards

Pingali 11:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Pingali, I've restored the article and included a hangon tag. Kindest, Addhoc 12:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A query about mediation
Having some trouble on the Satanic ritual abuse page and I was wondering what your thoughts were. There is something of an edit war going on between myself and the original author of the article, plus a few editors on either side. I don't think it's going anywhere and it's quickly descending into ad hominem.

Do you have any suggestions? I'm finding that any edits drawn from verifiable sources which depart from the POV of the original author are being deleted by him or others. These sources include respected experts in the field of child abuse and research findings in peer-reviewed journal articles.

The previous article was sourced in part or in whole from a book written by a husband-and-wife team with a history of distributing child pornography, and I'm finding it very strange that attempts to temper this material is being met with such resistance. Advice on how to avoid a full-fledged edit war would be appreciated! --Biaothanatoi 07:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the ad hominem stuff is escalating - the author has taken it to the 'Fringe Theories' noticeboard where he accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist (etc), claims that I am misrepresenting my opinion, demands that I prove otherwise, and then claims that I believe he is a 'paedophile apologist'.


 * There's no discussion about whether my changes to the article are factual, verifiable or relevant, just a lot of claims about who he thinks I am and what he thinks I believe. It's getting really weird. --Biaothanatoi 07:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to reintroduce sources, I would suggest listing them on the talk page, including web links where possible. Otherwise given the complexity of the dispute, I would suggest formal mediation.--Addhoc 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the problems has been that a lot of the material is in print, rather then online e.g. Sources are verifiable, but via a library and not Google.
 * He's accused me of calling him a 'paedophile apologist', so I think we've moved into the kind of territory that needs formal mediation. Thanks. --Biaothanatoi 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram investigation
Hi, Addhoc. I wanted to address your concerns in detail, so I left an explanation here. We shouldn't let disruptive editors turn productive contributors against each other. Additionally, I see that you have recently been granted sysop status. Congratulations! - Jehochman Talk 13:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about talk pages
Can i delete content off my own talk pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnpoo (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, although obviously useful conversations should be archived. Addhoc 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * okay, thank you. Shawnpoo 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
A heartfelt thanks for helping me disappear. You'll understand If I don't sign here *grizzles and points a threatening finger at Sinebot*. Cheers :)
 * Hi again - sorry to be a pest but would you mind deleting User:Bennyboyz3000/monobook.js? Cheers I would like to be untraceable :-)
 * No problem :-) Addhoc 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Deletion Question
Hey, you deleted Max kues with the edit summary "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it have been deleted as an attack page? *Cremepuff 22* 14:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll delete future versions on the basis they are attack pages. Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not attributing all the blame to you, as it was tagged as db-nonsense, so no harm done. Good luck with your semi-new admin tools! :) *Cremepuff 222* 14:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Addhoc, for wonderfully fixing up Drapetomania, making it a good little article. (I'm changing my "provisionally neutral" vote to "enthusiastic support"&mdash;post hoc!) --Mattisse 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Becouse i upload same image,this is for deletion ,some user upload wrong image at same file please delete this image--Boki13 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Addhoc 23:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why was this deleted it is considered fair-use as it is open for press to use. And on the same page, it is redudndant because someone uploaded a similar picture 2 days after me. Tails0600 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it is redudndant, because of another similar image, and I deleted the version without a fair use rationale. Addhoc 11:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, so just for my understanding, a press released image is not fair-use, correct? Don't want to fight over, I have better things to do, but want to see why, and how it was not fair-use. Tails0600 14:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The terminology is confusing, however a press released image doesn't imply the image can now be considered in the public domain.--Addhoc 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. You're right, this is horribly confusing. Tails0600 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Slipknot's fourth studio album
Yo, why was the page for Slipknot's fourth studio album deleted? Check Roadrunner Records' website: they list it. I'm just going to create it again shortly as this was a pointless ADF. Don't even try that crystal ball bullshit with me, becuz the info on the page could've been found either on the band's website or Roadrunner's. Dark Executioner 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner


 * Hi Dark Executioner, in the context of Articles for deletion/Slipknot's fourth studio album being very close, I would suggest listing Slipknot's fourth studio album at Deletion review.--Addhoc 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dysaethesia Aethiopica
I don't understand why you added a "check" tag to Dysaethesia Aethiopica. The sentence in question has a footnote reference to a document on the web, including a page number. Any reader can easily verify the source, so I'm not sure why the tag is there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether the MindFreedom International website is a reliable source.--Addhoc 21:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a reliable source for the sentence from the woman who criticizes Cartwright, isn't it? It's not being offered as a reliable source for anything else. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, advocacy websites aren't usually considered reliable. Addhoc 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to the issues about which they advocate. This is hardly an extremist position or a fringe theory. Also, this article is an external link in both this article and Drapetomania. (The external link is a reprint; my footnote is the original source.)
 * Do you mind if I copy this discussion to Talk:Dysaethesia Aethiopica, where other editors can contribute? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, good idea. Fully agree this a legitimate external link, and for the avoidance of doubt concur they aren't extremist or fringe. Addhoc 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help in Edit-War Dispute
At the moment, I am in the middle of an edit war with UtherSRG. He consistently accuses me of "original research" whenever I post reconstructions of prehistoric animals in articles he is watching. However, he failed to read in the Wikipedia guidelines concerning original research that self-made images are exempted from being regarded as "original research" provided they are intended to be accurate, and I try to be as accurate as possible. In fact, when the mention of providing sources was brought up, he scoffed at it, alleging that he would be unable to tell where my references ended and where my imagination began. Furthermore, given as how I have never seen UtherSRG harass other Wikipedia artists, such as, say, ArthurWeasley, for also posting self-made reconstructions of prehistoric animals, I get the distinct impression that he has some sort of bone to pick with me. As far as I know, if it was a problem of inaccuracy, other Wikipedians have either given me better references to use, or they have uploaded newer, more accurate reconstructions. Is there any way for this problem to be resolved? I want to help improve Wikipedia as much as anyone does, and I truly want to continue being able to post my reconstructions without the intereference from a person whose sole object is, apparently a distaste for my art.--Mr Fink 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added a reference to Image:Deinogalerix.JPG, and I'll ask UtherSRG if that's what he's looking for. Addhoc 17:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help in this. --Mr Fink 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that it's all for naught.--Mr Fink 17:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not good. The reference makes it clear that there are several points of divergence from the scientific data in your image. I'm only more convinced these images should not be included in Wikipedia articles. As for other artists, I've only run into one other that attempted to put handcrafted images onto an article I was watching, and his images were eventually removed. I have no bone to pick with you, Fink, only with your images. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Until you get a consensus in Wikipedia form a rule that forbids all editors from posting self-made reconstructions, OR unless you intend to ban me, as well as all other artists who post self-made reconstructions, and delete all of the selfmade reconstructions ever posted, you can not stop me from trying to improve Wikipedia.--Mr Fink 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to ban you? Your images are nice, but the ones you've put on the articles I'm watching I don't find to be anything that should be associated with a scientific article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there is no rule or law in Wikipedia that forbids people from posting self-made reconstructions here. And last I've seen, there is no one else here in Wikipedia that agrees with you about forbidding people from posting self-made reconstructions.--Mr Fink 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I see you totally disregard the 3 Reverts Rule, too.--Mr Fink 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've mentioned that on his talk page. Addhoc 18:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [] He has utterly no regards for Wikipedia rules, at all.--Mr Fink 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request
Howdy,

I am at my wits end with regards to User:ThreeE and others that support him: Arzel, Thedukeofno, and others. I'm not really sure what else I can do other than file an RfA with regards to the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band Article. ThreeE's edits are bordering on absurd and harrassing, IMHO. The article in question is well-referenced and I am certainly open to changes, but his edits are quickly becoming cumbersome and nitpicky; in a word, he appears to be a troll. While I am trying to assume good faith it seems that there is little I can do that will fix this problem. I want to warn you up front that this dispute has been going on for over a month and probably has about 300KB of text to read on the talk pages alone (never mind the multiple RfCs and talk pages). My behavior hasn't been stellar, but I think my actions that were out of line were the result of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy/guidelines (once explained to me, I have never repeated my mistakes). If you read through the talk page and Archive 3, 4 and the current talk page, you will see exactly what I mean.

Quite frankly, I find his comments/edits demeaning for no reason other than it seems he dislikes the Aggie Band.

I am in the process of moving to another city (in the next few days), so I may not respond quickly, but I will certainly respond as soon as I can. Any/all assistance would be appreciated as to what I should do next. — BQZip01 — talk 05:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi BQZip01, suggest you consider filing a Requests for comment on style issues.--Addhoc 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, two RfCs have been filed: one for his conduct, the other for the actual page. Between the two, we've gotten one admin's feedback. Do you still suggest it? What should I request? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Following the rewrite by Karanacs, no. Addhoc 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Eon (role-playing game)
Hello,

From what I understand you deleted the article on the Swedish role-playing game Eon (role-playing game) with the comment "(Expired PROD, concern was: This book is not notable, has no verifiable references, and the article has no context or analysis.)". I would like the article undeleted. Eon is one of the most well-known and best-selling Swedish role-playing games, and is clearly notable. I can search for and add references to the article if it's restored. Jonas Ferry 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonas, I've restored the article.--Addhoc 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, that article was short! I can see why it didn't look like much. Thanks a lot, I'll try to improve it by adding some content and references. Jonas Ferry 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

..created Ms. Meyer after your final warning. - CobaltBlueTony 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, and just after you posted indefinitely blocked by NawlinWiki. Addhoc 18:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit collision on Walter Aston, 9th Lord Aston of Forfar
Howdy, I was adding references to that article when you added a reference, resulting in an edit collision; I kept the ones I was adding. As a suggestion on citing references, your comment said "copied from thePeerage.com," but the reference itself made no mention of the site; if you got the info from the website, I think you're supposed to cite the website, not the book that informed the website. If it's an exact online reprint of the book from a reliable source, as with books.google.com's image scans of books, I gather you're supposed to cite it as the book, and include a link to where it's available online. I could be wrong, it's a bit confusing. :-) Cheers, -Agyle 23:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem
Instead of just continually putitng up 'Fair Use Rationale is inacurrate' boxes in Image: DoYouFearMeNow.jpg, which is rather annoying and doesn't do much to solve the problem, could you perhaps explain exactly how the Image's current Rationale is inaccurate and perhaps replace it with a more accurate one? SaliereTheFish 22:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale should answer the following questions:
 * What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage?
 * Has the resolution been reduced from the original?
 * What purpose does the image serve in the article?
 * Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic?
 * is it being used to illustrate a particular topic?
 * To what degree is the image replaceable by a free content image?
 * Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this image qualifies for fair use.
 * Addhoc 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ...And since when is it misisng any of these? Just listing what it should have isn't going to tell me what it doesn't.SaliereTheFish 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I thought it was missing at least items 2 and 6, however I've improved the rationale slightly and removed the delete template. Addhoc 12:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lounge piranha
Do you think Lounge piranha is AfD material? I'm looking at it and can't decide. -Warthog Demon 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there appears to be sufficient media coverage Addhoc 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's times like these I'm glad for asking dumb questions like this. Thanks. Cheers! :) -Warthog Demon 21:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Jane's F-15
Looks like F-15 Fox3 1.jpg and Image talk:Janes F-15 - kill.JPG were deleted. I don't know get what you were asserting on the talk page about non-free images in a gallery illustrating the articles, but I'm glad someone else had some sense and deleted this. Happy editing! :D -- VegitaU 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

B3ta
I wonder if you could cast an impartial objective admin eye over this issue here, in the absence of any response from the admin concerned yet... Liverpool Scouse 11:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the protection to semi - I can't see much evidence of heavy vandalism by logged in users. Addhoc 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free album cover
I see you added a "see also" section to this page. Note that it may be better to move that section from the transcluded documentation page, since it is not part of the actual template. Regards,  Melsaran  (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Melsaran! Addhoc 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting doesn't solve the problem
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but your work on Clabber along with other "solutions" you've made cited above doesn't give the creator a chance to improve Wikipedia in any way. If you thought the clabber page controversial in some way, you should have taken it to the talk page so a consensus can be reached. Deleting an article also deletes its talk page, giving no opportunity for discourse. No Discourse=No consensus. How can a consensus be reached if Wikipedians aren't able to discuss it. The reason for deletion is as follows:
 * Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, performing uncontroversial page moves, or cleaning up redirects.

The key word here is "temporarily". If you deleted the page to do one of the above that would be fine, but you deleted the page and failed to clean up the void that was left in your wake. In the future please either take it to the talk page to reach consensus or clean up after you're done your temporary deleting. --In Defense of the Artist 12:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand - if a non-admin editor wants to sort out a situation that requires deleting a page, they can use the db-housekeeping tag and then an admin will delete the page and the above deletion message is automatically generated. Addhoc 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)