User talk:PhilKnight/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Juan Martin

Hi - i have decided to continue with my edits for Juan Martin - any facts that i include into the artist will be citable. I ask in the interests of good natured writing,that you simply dont delete what you feel is incorrect, my information about Juan martins texhnique for instance comes from many books and articles.Ukbn2 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your help on the The Potter's House page. I was going through the tit for tat thing for ages and saw no hope in sight. You seemed to be the only person willing to help and I appreciate it. Nick Potters house 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy

You're welcome. So, do you have an opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy? Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for telling me. I will ask em. --David Mestel(Talk) 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I see that you're active at quite a few pages that are in the active caseload. Does this mean that you've joined us in our pursuits? Let me know. CQJ 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning to join the cabal (not that it exists) after I get some more experience. I've only been editing for two months and lack understanding of many procedures. For example, if I had taken the Lashkar-e-Toiba case, at the start I wouldn't have realised the advice in WP:WTA states the description terrorist shouldn't be used. Also, if I had more experience, I would have a better appreciation regarding the consensus of what separates reliable from unreliable sources that was the central issue of The Potter's House. Hopefully, my editing doesn't get in the way... Addhoc 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, after noticing your case involvement in several articles, don't you think you're ready to become a mediator yet? Regarding the sources issue, there sometimes is a fine line but Wiki does give some general guidelines to adhere to, like in the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina case (It's Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources). Anyway, it'll be great if you're willing to join the MedCab for real (that way you can be properly acknowledged)! Jsw663 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the encouragement. Addhoc 11:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Adhoc. I added some comments to the CSICOP talk page explaining my corrections. I also restored my corrections, which Davkal deleted. I think you noticed that my factual corrections (and addition) are not involved in the material being mediated. Nevertheless, Davkal deleted them, incorrectly claiming that I had agreed not to correct anything in the article. Hardly. I was particularly amused by his statement that he removed my "claim" about what the Robert P. Balles 2005 Prize was awarded. No, I inserted a fact that's clearly in the Skeptical Inquirer source that was cited. And then he suggests that if the information must be included, a very derogatory opinion must be included with it. Who is this guy?

I haven't participated much in the CSICOP mediation to date because I have almost no knowledge of the dispute involving the Mars effect. I prefer to leave arguing out of ignorance to the woo-woos.Askolnick 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Lee Clary

I have been working on the Johnny Lee Clary article for a while now. It was deleted a while back (see and I felt that it need to be revised. I have made a draft and have also worked on Wade Wats and made Johnny Angel (wrestler). If you have any imput or suggestions it would be appriciated. Oh and by the way I don't watch much TV and have only ever seen half an episode of family guy (seriously), thus why I can't really comment. Potters house 08:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Peoples' Global Action

Hi Addhoc. As you are somewhat engaged with the Peoples' Global Action article, I was wondering if you would mind giving your opinion on a debate taking place on the Talk page between myself and User:Harrypotter. The subject of the controversy is whether or not sources support linking PGA to the concept of invisible dictatorship. See Talk:Peoples' Global Action#Invisible Dictatorship. Your opinion would add a useful third-party perspective. Thanks! - N1h1l 20:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello Addhoc. You recently placed a 'delete' vote in the following article: [[1]]

You mentioned that you'd consider changing your vote if notability were further substantiated. Please check the article again, if you would. You'll find that the article has been completely rewritten by Wiki user Pixelface and all of the references check out. The included links to articles from Newsweek, Time, Adbusters magazine, the LA Times, and others are all valid and the site has independently collected webstats to verify its 85,000 unique visitor per day average.

I think you'll agree that this crosses the notability threshold, and given that the article has been completely rewritten I'm hoping you'll consider changing your vote to 'keep.' Those who care about this entry have done everything asked of them. This issue shouldn't be decided by those who haven't taken but a second to judge it. Please take the time to review the sources and make the right call. It's possible that no one else will vote, and your decision may very well determine whether this little entry stays or goes.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Dartboard

You asked to be found if secondary references could be found for the article. I found 2 and added them to the appropriate place. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and a Reply (from alan2012, aka AEL)

You wrote, on my user_talk page: "If from outside of Wikipedia you have personal issues concerning persons who are unconvinced by the orthomolecular approach then either you shouldn't edit this article or you should be very careful not to consider other Wikipedians as guilty by supposed association."


FYI: I have no intention of editing the article. I indicated in one of my posts that I cannot possibly be objective -- at least not at this moment, and probably not for some time. I would consider it the job of someone else to sort through the talk page stuff and make changes to the article that they deem appropriate.

It is not (quite) a matter of being "convinced [or not] by the OM approach". That's not the main point of my posts. THe main point is to understand the total dynamic that surrounds this issue, and the very powerful forces that underlie the dynamic, and the way in which the pedestrian "skeptic" stuff plays-in to the agenda of those forces. In other words it is a matter of understanding what is going on, not so much agreeing with one or other (trivial) system of medical techniques. My very last posts today, I hope, outlined the bredth of the point I am trying to make. My objective was to place the (relatively trivial) "OM" issue in what I believe to be its proper, broad context.

Also, I have no personal issues with anyone, i.e. with any individual. I am talking about a social/group phenomenon. The specific individuals are quite unimportant. I hope I made that clear, but maybe I failed. I consider other individuals "guilty" not AS individuals so much as as participants in a social and group/psychic process of which they might not be entirely aware (or even aware at all). To whatever extent they ARE aware, then they do have some personal responsibility.

Hope all that coheres.

Thanks again.

aka "AEL" --> Alan2012 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Use short sentences and lists"?

Regarding your comment on my talk page just now, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify. Paul Willocx 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't my text, I was reverting it due to the temporary edit stop we had agreed upon for that article. We'll make sure to write it in a better way when it is edited later, after the mediation has run its course. Paul Willocx 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC Tatsuma

Hi. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your comments and did reply (twice). I just wanted to leave a note here incase you're not watching that page, and I think you are right. I should have tried Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first, but after a month I just wasn't sure of how to deal with the situation on Ars Technica, and an RfC was suggested by another editor via IRC. Anyway, thank you for your input. - Debuskjt 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the AMA

We're glad to have you. --\/\/slack (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Wow! thank you for the award. that's my first one.23prootie 19:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Herding cats

Well, I will look forward to your future edits on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Michel Thomas article: Mediation Cabal

You wrote: "Probably close soon, as not within our remit." Can you explain a bit? Can you suggest what steps I should take next regarding the edit war here? 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you listed your principal objective as "to bar or restrict Rivenburg from further edits", this isn't part of the mediation-cabal's remit. If you want to place restrictions on someone (probation) or ban them completely, there is a process that is described in WP:DR. Addhoc 18:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorist organisations - Hindu

My views in a nutshell as requested.

List of terrorist organisations is a controversial article. It attracts people with strong and often polemical views that often go to the heart of a person's identity. Hence it is always going to have arguments and disagreements. I have contributed a significant amount to this article and other related ones such as Category:Designated terrorist organizations.

I would prefer that this article only considered organisations that had been designated as terrorist by a governmental or supragovenmental body which had the power to have a significant impact on that organisation. This is how the intro is currently worded - largely as a result of my edits. However, others have different views, including some who think that all organisations who have done acts that are generally accepted as "terrorist" should be included, even if they haven't been designated as such. I don't feel that the intro at the moment - despite its wording - reflects a strong consensus, which is why I haven't (yet) gone through and pruned out all the organisations listed that haven't been designated.

On the Hindu ones, my understanding is that VHP, RSS and Shiv Sena are others are certainly extremist organisations that have been involved in anti-Muslim (and for that matter anti-Christian) agitation and violence including the 2002 Gujarat violence and 1992 Bombay Riots. However, I am not aware of any Hindu organisations (except the LTTE which is listed as a Tamil rather than Hindu organisation and the Hindu Unity website) which are actually proscribed by anyone. Throughout all the edits none of the sources provided have indicated that an organisation is banned.

My preference is that VHP etc are therefore not included, although as I said above I recognise that other criteria - which would have them listed - may be equally valid to mine.

Hope this has been helpful AndrewRT - Talk 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful answer. Overall, I agree with the majority of your comments and the approach you have outlined. Addhoc 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User sm ashiq has re-introduced the Hindu section on that List. This time he/she hasn't even provided viable links. No links to govts that actually ban these organizations. And the question is how will you ban them? They are functioning political groups in India. I have to disagree with AndrewRT about the inclusion of these groups as extremist. They are extremist only because the current govt is pseudo-secularist and derives most of its vote-bank from muslims, communist parties etc who have no interest in maintaining communal harmony or a secular environment. When hindus are killed in kashmir, there is no action against the terrorists(early 2006) when hindus are killed in bombay, the govt does nothing(other than saying we must maintain restraint.) This kind of a status-quo is not acceptable to most Hindus. Either the govt takes action against the terrorists and extremist muslims who connive with pakistani intelligence agencies or Hindus will have to take matters into their own hands. After the bombing of a temple and railway station in varanasi, nothing really happened. Because those who carried out the bombings were related to muslims who voted for the current govt in that state, the govt therefore was not inclined to take any action against them. Expecting Hindus to sit back and do nothing when their security is threatened is not really possible in India. And that is why you see such retaliations[gujarat(which in the first place was perpetuated by the killings of some 60 odd hindu women and children pilgrims by extremist muslims.)]. Mob behaviour is not limited to just religious tensions. It also occurs frequently in traffic accidents and accidental deaths. Open a newspaper in India and you will find one or two accounts a week. Yukon guy 09:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to get into a lengthy debate here, we agree the groups are not listed as terrorists by any governments. Unfortunately, if Sm ashiq doesn't respond to the message I've left for him, the mediation would have to be closed. Addhoc 10:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I only edited that way based on existing Wikipedia info. Otherwise, I'd rather not be part of the mediation, since my only concern is that citation missing templates were put on information based on the first sentences of VHP and Bajrang Dal. Thanks. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 20:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, would suggest user Tamiland be banned, reverted yet another of his changes to the LTTE article. Ulflarsen 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Addhoc 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your message

well, all was checked of course, as you can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yes, also thanks for rewording your contribution to the Battle of Kosovo article. Addhoc 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

no problemo, just some people on wiki can not accept otherwise, only what they think...

No problem

Always here to help. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 13:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#SpinyNorman

Hi. As you have recently been an editor on the Honda S2000 article, I thought you might want to add your views to the above arbitration request, either as an involved or an outside party (I'm not sure which one you'd qualify for as I don't think you've been directly involved in edit-warring with SpinyNorman). Extra opinions are always welcome and will aid the arbitration process. Zunaid 09:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the invite. Addhoc 09:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of religions - please see message

Please see message here. Many thanks --Hari Singh 13:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, FloNight 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Addhoc 14:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your request for second/third opinion

Your wish is granted! And no, I'm not the fairy godmother from Cinderella ;P --physicq210 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for removal of Nlu's block of Keepthefactsinwikiplease posted to Admin's noticeboard/Incidents

Thanks for all your help on this.--Amerique 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)