Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:24, 15 May 2010

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118
edit

Advice on me

Hi PhilKnight. I want to get your advice because you were the one (sorry) who had to go through our mediation process on this Chinese Room topic. I've now had something posted on my Talk page making insinuations about my presence on Misplaced Pages and my motivations for editing. The sudden scrutiny into unrelated work (right after the mediation) makes me feel bullied. I really want to ignore it but I'd appreciate some neutral advice: Is there really a problem with my contributions? I know I've edited in good faith, and I am open to scrutiny. I just want to keep moving through proper channels on this one issue. If you have a moment, I welcome anything you might say about my own conduct or how you suggest I continue. Please feel free to post on my Talk page or anywhere. Thanks a million. Reading glasses (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and advice. Reading glasses (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your lightning fast anti-vandalism work! FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ‎ (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bircham International University

I am puzzled by Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-08/Bircham International University. First off, it is "interesting" that I am not named as a party to the dispute, considering that the article history indicates that I have made more revisions to that article than anyone else. (I believe JzG was involved with it largely in connection with repeated pleas that the article's subject made to OTRS. The article subject has historically tried to make private deals with OTRS volunteers, meanwhile making blanket statements to the effect that all other contributors to the article are engaged in vendettas against BIU.) Secondly, the article logs show no indication that the article has ever been protected, although the mediation request specifically asked for it to be unprotected, and I recall that it has been protected in the past. Has the article's log somehow been expunged? Third, I am puzzled to see that no comment was made after a user account (Raissa Rouse) that is freely self-identified as being a representative of Bircham International University started editing the Bircham International University article. All this gives me the distinct impression that a deal was made to which I am not privy. --Orlady (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Orlady, I can assure you that if deals have been made, MedCab would be the last to know. I guess it's possible that some of the article history has been oversighted? However without oversight privileges, I can't tell. However, I can tell you there isn't any non-oversighted deleted history, because that would be visible with ordinary admin priviliges. Regarding the new user account, I have left a note about conflict of interest. I guess the next thing to do is notify JzG of the case. Obviously, you're most welcome to add yourself as a party. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any oversighting going on, all I know is that this is almost certainly William Martin continuing his years-long campaign to whitewash Bircham. Google Bircham International University and follow the links; he is incredibly tenacious in following up any critical material at all and engaging in SEO to try and get his word in first and last in any searches. I reckon I'd do the same in his position, but I would not be in his position because I would not run an unaccredited institution, least of all one offering degrees in pseudoscientific quackery. Inciedntally, this is now at ANI, there's more detail there. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Interested in taking on a case?

I had left a note for The Wordsmith, but he unfortunately had a conflict of interest and would not take the case. Could you take a look at User talk:The Wordsmith#Dispute that could use your touch and see whether or not you would be interested in taking on that dispute? NW (Talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to help. Is this going to be a MedCab or MedCom case? Also, are you going to be co-mediating? PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think that MedCab would be better, as SlimVirgin has already rejected formal mediation at this time. I'll ask on the talk page of the article if everyone would be fine with the mediation. Also, I will be gone the next week or so. If that will not impact things too much, I would be happy to co-mediate with you. NW (Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of insurance company pages (again)

Note: A new editor, 207.145.212.178, has begun vandalizing the Aetna page in a manner identical to previous vandalism (of CIGNA as well) by user: 207.145.212.178, user: 74.215.128.82 and user: 129.137.84.171 (who were eventually blocked).

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation and the Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory page has been locked due to edit warring. A number of editors have agreed to mediation under your oversight to settle the more contentious issues. But two of the more active and controversial editors have not: SlimVirgin & Sophia As these editors are the most active representatives of one "side" of this dispute, could you gently encourage them to agree to the mediation? My attempts seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Eugene (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugene, thanks for letting me know. I've now read the article and talk page, so hopefully I can start to lend a hand soon. To be honest, given that SlimVirgin & Sophia are still posting on the talk page, I'm not overly worried about their decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV and 216.64.230.76

Hello. In looking for information regarding User talk:216.64.230.76 which I submitted to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism here, it appears that User:HBC AIV helperbot7 removed that entry along with another one after a block you made diff. No action was taken for the 216.64.230.76 nor a comment made declining it, so I didn't want to relist it until I knew if it was "working as designed" or an actual issue. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi MrDolomite, I don't know what happened there - usually the bot is reliable. Anyway, I've blocked the IP. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese Room

I'm not really interested in simply repeating the things I've already said, and that seems to be all that's going on in this present discussion, so I'm unwatchlisting the mediation page. However I will repeat myself one more time here. I think our policies are pretty clear that material has to be published in reliable sources before we can include it in Misplaced Pages. In the case of The Chinese Room (film), what is being put forth as 'sources' are the advance listings on the websites of two film festivals where the movie was shown. These are essentially advertisements for the movie. And as such can not be considered reliable sources. Imho, that this film was in fact shown at film festivals such as the Bare Bones Film Festival in Muskogee, Oklahoma and was not even able to generate coverage in the local Muskogee media speaks volumes as to whether it should be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. If the interested editors continue to try to insert this without providing independent reliable sources, I will pursue some form of dispute resolution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsideration of Phil Tadros

I would like to request reconsideration of the Phil Tadros article, as well as get your ideas on what the article was lacking that let to the deletion. Please see my user page for the deleted version. I think the article has some decent sources and was speedied too ... speedily. :) Thanks. Trustcitedonce (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Trustcitedonce, I've restored the article. The page was deleted under the proposed deletion process, and there weren't any objections after 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, PhilKnight. I'll be sure to fix up those incorrect citations. Trustcitedonce (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Eng-Tips

There's a low level dispute going on over at Eng-Tips Forums‎, I am unsure how to handle it. The president of the company has indicated to me (I am a member of the Eng-Tips Round Table, which advises management on site operations) that he would like to remove all references to him in that context from wiki. The reasons are good, and relate partially to the activities of a Boeing engineer, who has emailed me as well. An IP editor from Boeing is repeatedly attempting to reintroduce that data onto the page. I appreciate that if Dave doesn't want his name on wiki then he shouldn't advertise it on his own site, he is just trying to make it a little harder for the spiteful to find him. Can you have a think about it? Greglocock (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved Greglocock (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I've already contacted another admin for help about this, but they didn't respond back to me. If you look at the history of Funk and 7, the pages have been vandalized in the past month. Including that Funk has been vandalized 23 times in the past two weeks. Could you possibly place the pages under semi-protection? Thanks in advance! 71.252.203.153 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Funk, but the amount of vandalism for 7 is somewhat lower, and I'm not sure that semi-protection is necessary. Just so you know, you can always request protection at WP:Request for page protection. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Corporal Klinger

Slightly confused as to the block reason, they have no edits. Did you even actually check to see what the abuse filter hits were, since I'm really only seeing one that's questionable and that one is hardly blatant enough to warrant a non-warning indef. Q 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're considering an unblock, then I don't have any objections. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize after I hit enter that it sounded a bit snarky, sorry about that. Q 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Wiki.png

On the page File talk:Wiki.png has started a discussion and voting for the file Wiki.png to be returned to older version. Please get involve in discussion. Thanks, Aleksa Lukic (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Per voting on the talk page (WP:SNOW) may you revert to the version of december 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksa Lukic (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aleksa, I'm sorry, but normally a straw poll is closed by someone who didn't participate. Also, the situation is more complex, because it appears the change was made by someone acting in an official capacity as an employee of Wikimedia. That said, I'm still hopeful we can persuade them to have a change of heart. For example, it could become an option set in preferences or something. Anyway, thanks for letting me know about the straw poll. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion

I filed a requet of mediation with the Mediation Cabal as it is informal and as such the least distressing and problematic.

However after one week nothing yet has happened. If you feel there is nobody willing or able to mediate please let me know and we shall save time: I shall file a request for formal mediation straightaway.