User talk:PhilKnight/Archive29

Regarding protection of the John Zizioulas article
I find it unfair that article gets protected three times in the state where other party in the dispute had last edit on it. Cebactokpatop (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pallywood
Thanks for the page protection. I'm trying to explain to the new user why blogs aren't considered reliable sources, original research isn't allowed, etc. - protection should allow for a breathing space while the education process takes place. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, Addhoc, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human trafficking in Angeles City
An article that you have been involved in editing, Human trafficking in Angeles City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Human trafficking in Angeles City. Thank you.Susanbryce (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request
Ciao, this is request to all admins but I post only here because you are a correct admin. It's impossible for me other form of free talk then this is not broken policy by me!!!! Regards. PIO, 8 Mar 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Medcab
Hi, Addhoc. I'd like to help out at the medcab, yet I am currently involded in formal mediation myself. Do you have any objection on that ground, or can I start helping promoting peace, great justice, and bathrobes? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Martijn, you are most welcome to help out. Addhoc (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for following up on my request here. Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tenby Davies - Thank you
Dear Addhoc

Just a note to thank you again for your help with the Tenby Davies photos. Permissions have been sorted and the links to the page restored.

Best regards Lepidus Magnus (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy
You asked me not to post at Randy_blackamoor's talk page; fine, but you don't indicate why? Remember, what's obvious to people who have been thinking about a particular problem for awhile is not necessarily obvious to others. Pete St.John (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Randy has been blocked for getting over heated in arguments about homeopathy. The block is at least partially to allow him to cool down. I'm concerned this won't happen if he spends the next week debating subjects related to homeopathy. Addhoc (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly over-optimistic of me to think that my explanation will help him; nevertheless, I'd like him to have something to think about besides 1. some folks support him and 2. some folks are against him. He has a point, and he also has a mistake. If he can recognize both then he can indeed find peace. Of course I'm wrong but I thought it was worth the shot. Also during his block he probably won't be able to talk about much of anything else (if he posts to his talk at all). Pete St.John (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Flyleaf follow-up
Hello Addhoc, there's still some trouble on Talk:Flyleaf, and people are starting to clamor to let the article be edited again. Would you mind stopping by and giving your opinion on the situation? Thanks! GlassCobra 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My advice, for what's it worth, is to conclude the discussion by stating that in your opinion, the compromise reached is to include the description "Christian Rock" in the infobox, but not include this description in the lead section. From there, I would leave it for a few days, and provided that still was a reasonable assessment of the consensus, then unprotect, and make the change yourself. Addhoc (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinator access to #wikipedia-medcab
Hi!

While Vassyana already has coordinator access (level 49) on the IRC channel #wikipedia-medcab, I couldn't find a registered nickname that had a wikipedia or wikimedia host-cloak of yours to grant those rights to.

Obviously we don't want me promoting a complete stranger! If you'd care to leave me a note with your current registered nickname on IRC, I'll be quite happy to give you coordinator access to the channel. If you're uninterested, don't feel pressured to respond, though I'd still appreciate it if you did. :)

Sadly, Keitei seems to have left us, so I've removed her access, though Cowman109 is still around and (I presume) still helping on occasion, so I've left his access as-is. If the current coordinators request it, the situation can be changed as you see fit.

If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks for all your hard work!  ~Kylu (u|t)  05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Zedla RfA
Hello, and thank you for your participation and support in my RfA. Having passed, just, I hope I can become a trustworthy administrator as well as editor. Regards – Zedla (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Logging notice
Hi Addhoc. I noticed that you did not log the notice you sent to about the I-P Arbcomm decision. Would you mind terribly doing that? I would do it myself, but I believe the admin who sends the notice is the one who has to do it. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Tiamut, thanks for the prompt. Addhoc (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship
 Dear Addhoc, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Retrieval; Skagway Air Service
I need to revive an article that you deleted, so I can redirect the info to another article. Skagway Air Service should've been redirected to the List of Airlines in Alaska article, rather than deleted. DanTD (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Addhoc (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Block?
Hey there Addhoc, I was curious as to your reasoning for blocking this user indef as a vandal only account. I looked through his contribs and do see a few un constructive edits, a few test edits here and there (as to be expected with a new account), but I also see quite a few good edits, ones that where at least an attempt to improve some articles. I do not really think that constitutes indef as a vandal only account. Please correct me if I am wrong, there may have been something i just did not see. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiptoety, the discussion at Articles for deletion/Forrest Peterman concluded the article was a subtle hoax, and was therefore a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Addhoc (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw, I see. That you for clearing that up! Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was attacked first
I read your message, and I did get out of like calling Opinoso a jackass. I am sorry. But if you read Talk:Italian settlement in Argentina, it was Opinoso who started it by calling me racist. According to Wikipedia's policy, Opinoso did do a personal attack on me. I hope he was also warn on his actions. And repeat again I was wrong for insulting him. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Anonymous ring logo.gif‎
I notice that you have replaced Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg by Image:Anonymous ring logo.gif‎ in the Anonymous (group) article. Whilst I appreciate your good-faith edit, I think it would be best to leave Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg within the article until its second deletion review‎ is closed. This logo has undergone a very heated debate spanning an, a former deletion review, and an , as well as its talk page. I personally feel it would be an unfair dismissal of the discussions if the deletion review were to be closed on grounds that the image is now orphaned. Ayla (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ayla, I don't consider a dismissal of protracted discussions to be necessarily a bad thing. In fact I like the idea. Otherwise, I agree. Addhoc (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. However, if the review is closed "conveniently", it would only be a matter of hours before the new logo is nominated for speedy deletion too, using the same arguments that have been raised during the above-mentioned discussions. Ideally, the issue should be addressed and settled for good in the closure. Ayla (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... disco spinster   talk  23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1
Hi Addhoc, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop. Of course, special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Note
Thank you for your note on my Talk page. I have decided to take a few days break from editing that particular article. However, I believe you are mistaken in your analysis of the situation there. I am more then happy to work toward a compromise, and in fact, I find Malik's recent suggestion that the CAMERA quote be included somewhere in the article (though not in its own section) to be quite workable. You will note that this compromise is quite a departure from the earlier claims by the tag team who was reverting this quote out of the article under the false claim that it is from "an attack site", or the equally false claim that it is poorly sourced. I am also somewhat taken aback by the one-sidedness of your action which lets a clear threat such as this off without as much as a warning, and ignores the edit warring by Boodles the Cat. There are two sides to each story. Take care. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The uw-agf3 template isn't usually considered a threat. Addhoc (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Informatron
Hello... seems he/she is at it again. I've blocked the IP for a month, and indef'ed User:InfoThompson - what about User:Informatron? It probably warrants an extension, but as you did the first block I thought I'd leave it up to you. --Ckatz chatspy  00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ckatz, yup I agree. Addhoc (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:MuskogeePolice.jpg
Hi. You declined a speedy delete on this image but gave no reason. It's a re-creation of a previously speedied image and is clearly someone else's copyright. The editor claimed fair use - an excuse that's already been rejected previously when the image was deleted first time round. andy (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Addhoc (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)