User talk:PhilKnight/Archive20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Un deleting Daily Giz Wiz

Please un-delete Daily Giz Wiz. I was just started adding stuff to it. At least help me get the links out from there so I can put them somewhere else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjefen6 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sjefen6, I've restored the article. Addhoc 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your ArbCom question

Hey, I was confused as to what your question entailed on my candidacy questions page. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on personal attack

Adhoc, you helped me with a mediation regarding Bounding earlier this year with User:Ahering@cogeco.ca. Could you please look at this and advise me regarding how to get this guy to cease his personal attacks? I have requested this of him several times. He is also using a sock puppet to push his points, and has vandalized my User page. Thanks much. Fireproeng 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And again here. Fireproeng 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick unprotection! (I am so stealing that donation pic)--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Your deletion of Chaudhry Ghulam Ahmed Zamurrad Tehsil Nazim Jhelum was simply wrong. It is not "nonsense" at all. The person being a mayor, you should never use speedy deletion powers in this way. I have a big problem with this action, which was obviously hasty. Charles Matthews 09:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that deleting this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaudhry_Ghulam_Ahmed_Zamurrad&oldid=168271717

was a mistake and have welcomed and apologised to the editor in question. However, I have performed thousands of deletions and this was a rare mistake. In this context, I suggest you tone down your remarks. Addhoc 11:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November?
Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007.
It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Convert/W

You deleted my page. Thanks. It was a mistake ... not nonsense (patent or otherwise) just in the wrong space. I'd meant to create {{Convert/W}}. J ɪ m p 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with 3RR report

When I was doing my RCP, I noticed that two Anons (User:198.82.67.112 and User:88.70.187.241 (keep repeatedly reverting each other in the article Tremulous, it seem like a violation of the 3RR rule, but I don't know what I should do. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 13:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The revert war is over external links, so probably isn't covered by 3RR. I've warned the spam account and will block if this continues. Addhoc 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Thanks for the link. Actually, upon reading this, it seems that it is you who conforms to this essay rather than me. Especially the part about abusing cites, and justifying edits you don't agree with. Irony? Oh also, knowlingly adding (or intentionally keeping) original research is generally a bad idea, and is actually a policy rather than someone's essay.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Campus fire safety

Here's an article for you and your best friend Fireproeng to give some loving attention to. I'm sure it's right up your alley :-) --Achim 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigman^what?/trail 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Fundraising banner

Your fundraising banner is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Give us your fucking money. PrimeHunter 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Cedric Baseya

Before I take this to AfD can I check on why you feel it is not a speedy. Do you disagree that is a copyvio? Nuttah68 12:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore the speedy tag and let another admin decide. Addhoc 12:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tears for Fears edit war

You seem to be a knowledgeable editor. We have a problem with an edit war going on over at the Tears for Fears webpage. IT deals with what a "fan site" really is. Anyway, one contributitor seems to have gotten a little hot under the collar. Some help in resolving this dispute would be much appreciated.Rabidwolfe 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

If you voted in my RFA...

More RfA thank yous

Hi Addoc, thank you so much for voicing your support in my successful RfA. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! Spellcast 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

User:Domaleixo

I saw you blocked this rude individual recently for 48 hours. During that time he appears he has been editing under the IP's in a manner that is POV and warring. I am sure that between the 2 IPS and Domaleixo he has violated 3RR. And he is damn rude. Note, the three of them sign as "Emerson".

The fact that he is evading a block (well from my reckoning of the contrib pages) is a problem in itself. Now he is using them to evade 3RR and telling me to "run to Momma and Poppa", and telling an admin he is a crawler (in Portuguese). What do to? thanks --Merbabu 06:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, IP's are 189.41.194.183 and 189.41.199.20. see the contribs. Same pages Domaleixo has been at. Same style. cheers --Merbabu 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

page move vandalism

Hello Addhoc, can you also repair the malicious page moves by User:Mattsusie1. I think it can't be done without admin rights. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done by Deskana. Thanks anyway. --Oxymoron⁸³ 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for removing vand. from my userpage!--Seba5618 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about blocks

You seem to blocking shared IPs for rather lengthy period - for example 196.3.51.241 (talk · contribs) (block escalated from 24 hours to six months) and 209.158.191.254 (talk · contribs) (block escalated from 48 hours to six months). Both had made some good contribs among the vandalism - I would have thought the block policy required only a block of about 1 week. The school IP might have warranted longer but {{schoolblock}} really should be used in the blocking summary. In any event, the second block on a shared IP really shouldn't be for 6 months. IPs are welcome to edit the project too. Frankly this comment to Wknight94 was out of line - he's a very experience admin who prob does most of the blocks of users reported to WP:AIV. His advice is worth listening to. Please be more open to advice from other admins, your approach to blocks seems rather out of step with the rest of us. WjBscribe 03:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi WJBscribe. Thanks for your comments about block lengths. However, if a {{schoolblock}} template is used on the talk page, I don't see why you believe mentioning the template in the block summary is useful. Also, I wasn't the only editor expressing frustration with the conduct of Wknight94, whose involvement has been unhelpful. Addhoc 10:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of putting {{schoolblock}} in the block summary rather than on the talkpage is simply that a lot of editors without accounts don't realise they have a talkpage. If they aren't the first to use the IP after the block, they won't get the "you have messages notification". As the block summary is part of the block message they get when they try to edit the page, including the template means that template is the first thing they see when they find out they've been blocked. Its not essential but I think should be encouraged as best practice. WjBscribe 18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhelpful how? Are you referring to Vampire Warrior (talk · contribs)? I think I've been quite helpful, and yet realistic, here, here, and here. We don't indefinitely protect user talk pages when the user receives one questionable IP edit in a month. If we all followed that philosophy, almost everyone's talk page would be permanently protected. When I tried to alert you to that and to another odd block yesterday, you responded both times by erasing my message. Your block lengths and protection philosophy are unusual and you neglected to undo an autoblock on someone that you unblocked yesterday. Inexperience is fine but erasing the messages of people trying to advise you is not a good approach. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While I obviously don't agree, and consider Vampire Warrior's characterisation to be apposite, I would prefer not to continue this thread. Addhoc 17:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hi, I really appreciate that you quickly blocked the vandal, 82.45.192.249 from behaving disruptively further. I was vandalized twice by the same vandal and I don't know why he did that. I don't believe he was drugged because he only gave me the derogatory slur as he also vandalized Sbowers3's talk page [1]. Sbowers3 once visited at my talk page and said he will keep an eye on the vandal, so the vandal acknowledges Sbowers3 as well. It is so weird that the vandal is obsessive at me, because I only added an inter wiki to Coconut in which the vandal engaged and nothing more. I suspect the vandal is using his ip to avoid his identity revealed. Anyway, I thank you again. --Appletrees 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SIU College of Business trimming

Addhoc - I am new to Wikipedia and recently created a page about my alma mater, the SIU College of Business. Why has a large portion of my work been trimmed out? I don't want to violate policies, I would simply like an explanation as to why most of my article was chopped out. If I put it back will be simply be cut again?

Many thanks in advance,

mpurdy99

Hi mpurdy99, I've restored most of the trimmed sections - my concern was overuse of lists combined with lacking an impartial tone. Addhoc 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)