User talk:PhilKnight

; Archives
	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
	edit

Archives

Bass Strike

How do I expand or resource the article?--Mariofan90 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that you research the subject a little more first - you could start by looking at this search result Addhoc 10:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio

The mediation is not stalled; we had one mediator (Selket) who came in, looked around & then did nothing, withdrawing as soon as as his RfA passed! Now another one has recently come in, but all I have seen from him is a request to confirm the parties will accept him. Setting up your own seperate article prejudices the issue completely. Johnbod 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't realise that a new mediator was interested. Addhoc 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here, though I have heard notrhing since. Johnbod 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RodentofDeath revert warring in Angeles City

Rodent's on a tear in Angeles City. I'm considering a mediation but it's not really my issue. Any suggestions, and would you like to be involved in the mediation? / edgarde 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if interested on WP:ANI#RodentofDeath_revert_warring_in_Angeles_City / edgarde 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I couldn't mediate because I was previously involved, however I'll comment. Addhoc 08:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations

Please remove your unfounded accusations about conding pedophilia on the Rfc page, personal attacks are as you know, not allowed on wikipedia. Thanks for your cooperation. V.☢.B 12:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you have a look at WP:SPADE. Addhoc 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement remains unchanged. V.☢.B 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy notice, this issue is now being discussed on WP:AN/I - see here. MastCell ^Talk 15:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD discussion of template(s) you have recently edited

Template:More sources is under discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dpeterson RfC

I urge you to look at some of the links provided by Shotwell in his RfC and by me on the discussion page. I don't know anything about the paedophilia dispute, but I do know that on attachment therapy and related issues Dpeterson has been relentlessly pushing a POV (against ACT and for DDP). None of the complainants have a particular view. We just want the page to be accurate. StokerAce 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Canvass

OK, I see, but in this case, the user in question has been deliberately misleading people successfully (single use accounts, etc.), and I felt that was reasonable to draw attention to, as an exceptional case. Clavecin 14:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I went back and deleted the comment from the talk pages of those users, except one who had already replied. I should perhaps have limited it to the users who were obviously misled by the user in question, but then again, the person who reviews the debate will be able to see this, so my canvassing those users as I did was perhaps a bit redundant and unnecessary; I will not do this again. Clavecin 14:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castelseprio

Please stop this. It seems very odd behaviour on the part of a member of the Mediation cabal to attempt to pre-empt the result of a mediation you are not involved in! Johnbod 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AT and pedophilia

Hi Addhoc. I don't see the pedophilia connection [1]. Could you provide an explanation, diff or section? Maypole 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maypole, when I made the comment Jim Burton had endorsed the RfC; he has now been indefinetly blocked and his name was removed. However, Voice of Britain endorsement is still there, and he has been blocked for a week for revert warring on the Child sexual abuse article. Addhoc 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carioca RFA

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (31/4/1), so I am now an administrator. If you have any comments or concerns on my actions as an administrator, please let me know. Thank you! --Carioca 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

decade nostalgia

I believe that you deleted half the bloody article, and yes I do consider that vandalism. Watch yourself. And I don't think that there's a high chance of my being blocked, what with this occuring quite a while ago. Anyway, I'm checking in on the decade nostalgia page as I'm going to evaluate your latest edits. I'm also adding you to my watchlist. --Paaerduag 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your informaion: Jimbo Wales wrote:

“

In general, I find the {{fact}} tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes {{fact}} is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone.

I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with {{fact}}, usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :) [2]

”

Addhoc 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your accusations

you did what you did without any form of consensus. why not ask the editors for their views about what you were going to do? It was ages ago anyway; get over yourself. And your threats mean nothing to me. --Paaerduag 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. I'm merely indicating that I'm going to remove the unsourced material that has been tagged. Addhoc 11:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding that reference to Across Five Aprils

Please stop adding that reference to Across Five Aprils, it doesn't have much relevence at all to where you're putting it. And no, I don't own the article, but I'm in the band and I really don't want that on there... thanks.