User talk:PhilKnight/Archive24

Question about deleted page
Dear Addhoc, firstly I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologise if I'm making mistakes by posting here. I wanted to ask about why the page on Abbas Hasan the Pakistani pop-singer was removed. He is a new up and coming artist and there is a lot of interest in him in local Pakistani press. I think it's fitting to have a page on this artist as his music is popular and he is set to take centre stage in the music scene in Lollywood.

Thanks,

Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimfan39 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Activity survey for members of WikiProject Companies

 * placed on talk pages of all participants

I wanted to get a notion of the level of activity of people who are members of WikiProject Companies with respect to monitoring the WikiProject Talk page and participating in discussions of interest and/or responding to requests for input.

Could you please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Member information and adding yourself to one or more of the several groupings listed?

Thanks for your assistance.

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Images for deletion
I replied, thanks for the tip-off as to your submission. Ase nine  (talk)(contribs) 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

new request
hi. i just submitted a request for Israeli-Palestinian conflict. i would suggest you look into this matter yourself, or else assign someone experienced. There is current a request pending at ArbCom, to look at the entire group of articles on this topic. many user conducts are likely to be reviewed, yet is possible that few specific articles disputes will be resolved. so I would feel that this is a good time to try to start some positive form of dispute reoslution as well.

i remember your last comment to me, regarding your reasons for feeling you might not be seen as neutral in this case. however, i would suggest that you take this case. i don;'t think anyone will think less of your ability to be fair, based on just a few past positive interactions with one or two involved editors. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

 * Kbthompson (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Help
Consciousness causes collapse has a number of pseudoscience promoters trying to argue that general consensus is not seen for the fact that this idea is pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfArb for Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I'm curious if you're aware that there is an open request for arbitration on the exact same subject that is noted in Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know the case's initiator mentioned the case in passing, but I don't understand why you would accept the case when an RfArb is just around the corner. --  tariq abjotu  23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I know where this is going: the Cabal will take care of the content aspect and ArbCom will take care of the user conduct aspect of the dispute? Either way, I feel you might be stepping on each other's toes and splitting the attention of the (many) participants. Also, the ArbCom's finding could conceivably have an effect on the mediation case. --  tariq abjotu  23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tariqabjotu, I think a lot depends on the scope of the arbitration case, if the scope is limited as FloNight is suggesting, then informal mediation could be possible. However, to be honest, I haven't looked into the case in detail, and you could well be right, and informal mediation may not be practicable at this time. Addhoc (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu is raising some excellent points. i would almost agree with Tariq--if theArbCom case were not being started on such a wide, collective, nonspecific basis. Arbcom cases can be very helpful if they are made to focus on a specific article, a specific set of user behaviors, and seek to untangle the disputes related to a specific article. They are not so great when it comes to untangling a whole slew of allegations and counter-allegations, posed by two sides which are equally cohesive and sure of their rightness.


 * And when ArbCom seeks to address a whole slew of articles, as well as a whole slew of users, each of which is trying to scrutinize each other's conduct and make conflicting allegations and counter-allegation, it is surely bound for massive and deep problems. So that is why i feel a MedCab case, in tandem with an ArbCom case, can do much to do some positive work here.


 * Furthermore, this is the kind of coordinated, systematic approach, which is sorely neededd by Wikipedia dispute resolution, and is lacking all too often. So I feel we have a real chance to chart a new course in how to resolve things positively. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you do want to say we should at least tread carefully, in light of the ArbCom case, and at least give things some time to see where things go, I have no problem with that. So I am fine if you wish to feel free to use your judgment, and to take some time, to make sure things are proceeding constructively. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Allo there Addhoc. Seems that this is bigger than one article, I will be watching the RfArb, thanks! RomaC (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bates case
I'm handling this medcab Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, and want to know if its progressed to the point that I can close it? I've reviewed the facts and it seems to be one user with a fringe-like view standing against several users consensus. And quite frankly, I've never heard of this topic before, but after reading both versions, I agree their's is less-POV.  MBisanz  talk 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a very unusual situation, because there appears to be a reasonable consensus amongst editors, so mediation isn't required. I suggest that you leave a tactful explanation explaining your reasoning. Addhoc (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I gave an evenhanded conclusion to that one. Will a bot automatically pull it off the open-pages list or do I need to do that?  MBisanz  talk 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot will automatically remove it from open cases. Addhoc (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Small favor
Dear Addhoc, Now that the article for WinterStar Symposium has been deleted, I was wondering if you could create a redirect page for it to Association for Consciousness Exploration, as you had suggested. I don't know how. If possible, could you also do it under the spelling Winterstar Symposium (without the capital "S" in WinterStar)? I would greatly appreciate it. If you like, you can also post an explanation on my talk page as to how it's done (or direct me to one). Even Kathryn had suggested a merge or redirect from this article and Jeff Rosenbaum to the ACE article. Rosencomet (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Have a look at Redirect.--Addhoc (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! Talk about quick service! Thanks. Rosencomet (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
Thanks for taking on the Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Addhoc, is see this case is still open but that the notice has been taken off the article page. Is the case still open? Are you the responsible administrator?Osli73 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The case is open, I'm the informal mediator, and there is a notice on the talk page.--Addhoc (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Companies: Deletion discussion notification template
Template created - input requested before listing on Main WikiProject page. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Endexx Corporation


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I think it's really nice that you took the extra time to help out there. I wanted you to know that it was noticed and appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD question: Recombinant text
I have very little experience in AfD matters, and am asking for your input before nominating an article for deletion, because, quite frankly, I do not want to be seen as someone who capriciously nominates articles which do not meet AfD standards.

If you have time, please take a look at this article. It was created by the person who—as the intro asserts—is the very person who coined the term. Most of the edits are by that person. Most, if not all, of the sources link back to this person. I mean, at best it appears to me to constitute OR, at worst, self-promotion. But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. What do you think?

I selected you and many other editors pretty much completely at random; I picked one day's AfD archives, and clicked on the talk pages of the first two or three dozen editors' talk pages I came across. I hope that in using this selection method, I will get editors who are well-versed in AfD policies, yet who also represent a good cross-section of AfD philosophies. I will monitor your talk page for your response. Thanks. Unschool (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Unschool, the term has 59 google hits none of which appear to be reliable sources, consequently, I think it could be nominated for deletion. Addhoc (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

DRV overturns
Fwiw, I overturned the closures in the deletion discussion because it's not up to a closer to enter new evidence, but you might want to contact the discussion participants about the new sources. Generally, if sources are offered and their reliability is not challenged, the assertion that they make the subject notable stands. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

darkimmortal
What was the "threatening behavior" he was blocked for? He's requesting unblock and I just want to see the evidence. Certainly he doesn't like having warnings on his page but, while I personally wish it wasn't, it is permitted to remove them under policy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, I think it was probably this. Addhoc (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That necessitates a block, for sure. But indefinitely? for one not directed at a specific person? His contribs otherwise suggest to me that he might seriously be trying to edit constructively. I'm really thinking of lifting this one; he's served more than enough time for one instance of ill-chosen language. Yes, he's prickly about his user talk page, but as I've said that's not against policy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, if you want to unblock then go ahead. Addhoc (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Companies - indicating which participants are admins
I added a notation to the Participants list that shows that you and I are the only two signed people who are admins. I added a note to the talk page about this as well. I am only advertising this to you at the moment; it's an FYI to other folks, so I won't drop a note on anyone else's talk page. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 20:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is Sex Fun image
It was about 300 by 450 or so, check the history. I thought it might overwrite it completely but I should have known it would stay in the history. I've uploaded a clean verion Image:Why Is Sex Fun.jpg (capital I in Is), so you can delete the other (not sure on what the policy is for having inappropriate images stored as older versions but there's no point having two anyway). Richard001 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Editor review
Thanks for the review and kind words! Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  23:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for the barnstar, and also for helping me lately to have some positive thought(s) about WP admins. Hope you have a very happy 2008! ~ priyanath talk 04:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
Hi Addhoc - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. Thank you especially for taking the time to explain your !vote a little bit - I certainly try to be helpful and trustworthy, so I was glad to see that your perception was that I succeeded (Have I ever helped you with anything, or did you just conclude that I was helpful from looking over my contributions?). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
 Dear Addhoc, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationales
Hi, I see you are working on fair use rationales for images too. Great! I'm working on logos now, adding rationales using the template Template:logo fur, like in Image:Gwangju-si_logo.gif. Do you have any useful tips to share? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Apoc2400, I haven't got any tips, however Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7 could be of interest - the bot is designed to add rationales to logos. Addhoc (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sydneycentralplaza.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sydneycentralplaza.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes
I'm a little confused to what BLP violation you are referring to. Please address here. Thank you. 216.73.133.49 (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Companies - 4 recent discussion threads

 * same message on participants' talk pages who indicated "Put something on my talk page if you want my input

Discussion threads opened in the past week at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies in case you would like to comment: --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indicating participants who are admins
 * Brand names section on Main page - expansion
 * WikiProject Parentage statement
 * Revisions to the Main Page: Revision to opening inches