User talk:PhilKnight

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-20_Peter_Nordin#Mediator_response

Forgive me, I am new to this. My first case. What exactly is necessary to close? Do I post a summary of the case with a conclusion or do I simply change the template field to closed? Thanks for your time and consideration. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I usually include a short summary in the Medcabstatus comments section or leave a slightly longer summary undeneath the discussion between the parties. Addhoc 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

FYI, your user page was vandalized earlier today. Hirohisat ^{Freedom of Speech} 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. Addhoc 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

&thanx in turn 4 reverting my page; never noticed 2 words' diff myself.Hilarleo 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags medcab case

Hi there. I opened a medcab case on the guideline for using spoiler templates. the other day. FunPika has taken the case on as mediator, but has requested help from another mediator. I think this was probably wise, as the dispute is not an ordinary edit war centred around a single point, but rather a fairly large discussion involving dozens of users and affecting thousands of users and articles. (My guess is that the discussion on the topic by this point in time exceeds the length of the collected works of Shakespeare). Would you be willing to assist in the mediation of the case, or to recommend some mediators who would be willing and able to? -Kieran 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'll assist. Addhoc 11:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in completing Mediation Cabal procedures

I am attempting to apply for Mediation Cabal input per the procedures listed on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, but I am not sufficiently skilled to create the "article's case page" listed in part III of "How to list a MedCab request". Can you assist, please? I have tagged the subject article Talk:Bounding per part II. Thanks in advance for the help or advice. Fireproeng 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to hopefully speed this request, following is the input I anticipate for the 'article's case page':

Request made by: Fireproeng 00:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Bounding

Who's involved?

Ahering@cogeco.ca and fireproeng

What's going on?

inadequate source, NPOV

What would you like to change about that?

Article per WP guidelines.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No

I've created the case page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01 Bounding. - Addhoc 09:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thamks! Fireproeng 00:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Role of the Coordinator in MedCab

Hi there Addhoc: I note you reverted my addition of myself as a coordinator to the MedCab, which is of course perfectly fine (as this is what I instructed in my edit summary if anyone disapproved). I was formerly the (sole) coordinator of the Medcab some time ago, and largely oversaw the development of the MedCab from an inactive project into something which actually was doing something useful, on the request of User:Kim Bruning. Indeed, the current process the MedCab operates under was in fact my design; and initially I did take something of a hiatus from the MedCab to attend to my personal life. Of course, it is entirely up to you, as it is not my intention to muscle into an initiative you now feel is "yours" as it is true I have been somewhat uninvolved from it for some time; but I should be more than happy to resume work in the administrative side of the MedCab as I feel there is quite a bit of work to be done regarding case quality control and mediator competence checking amongst other things, in addition to streamlining the mediation process and training up new mediators. If you'd like me to participate, then I leave it entirely up to you whether you choose to permit me to become a coordinator again; but, of course, if you do not, then I entirely respect your decision. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Just as a sideline, originally the Coordinator was not an elected position, and anyone could volunteer to perform coordination tasks (to a certain degree). I wonder if you might consider implementing a similar policy, although if you have some kind of pseudo-democratic process behind this then I don't mean to abrogate it. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, thanks for your explanation. I gather the decision to have 3 coordinators was taken by Cowman109, who took over from you following concerns that MedCab had moved too far away from what it was intended to be. Personally, I think our current set up where there are 3 coordinators, in addition to guidance offered by Kim Bruning and support by Ideogram, is working reasonably well. Addhoc 09:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Ann Crecente

Hi, you chimed in during the discussion for an AfD for this article a while back. The article was re-created after two pieces of legislation were passed. If you could please look at the new article and share your thoughts at the NEW AfD I would appreciate it!

Jennifer Ann Crecente 2nd AfD

Drew30319 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Addhoc, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve ongoing conflict

Could you please contribute to the discussion at [1], to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding Aryan migration theory/OIT related issues.Sbhushan 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Launders

The source is actually a TV show, I believe it's linked at the end. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I should have said the only article you mention in your answer to Q2 isn't sourced apart from an external link. Addhoc 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying then, I'll try to dig up the sources. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Random curiosity question, if the article were AfD'ed, what do you think would happen? Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, however I would 'vote' keep based on these searches--Addhoc 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that any he's the only person ever to do what he did. Kwsn^(Ni!) 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review MFD

I've moved some stuff around and started to set up the review process to work more like WP:RM, where discussions would be held on the article talk namespace (in this case, a parent article such as a list of, etc). You had mentioned that it would be a big improvement, and so I was wondering if this would change your support regarding deletion. Even if it is not perfect right now, there is a need for something other than AfDs to handle these articles, and this is a process that will only continue to improve. If something doesn't make sense, we'll change it. If people are being excluded, we'll change it. But being sniped before we have a chance to develop the process is like getting the ground pulled from under you. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for your input at my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed, but I'll try to make improvements on the concerns your brought up. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LTTE and Norway

We were trying to reach consensus on this subject and I got the discussion started on the talk page, but Lahiru keeps deleting Light Years and my comments. Deleting other people's comment I feel is unacceptable. Sinhala freedom 01:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Rapids Symphony

Thanks, Addhoc, for defending the neutrality of the edited article on Grand Rapids Symphony. Also thanks to whoever added references to the article. Jtparr 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Also, I appreciate your hard work in finding sources for articles. Personally, I consider lack of reliability to be a considerable problem for Wikipedia, possibly the most serious fault with this method of constructing an encyclopedia. However, at the moment there doesn't appear to be a consensus on how to resolve this problem. Addhoc 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi,

I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)