User talk:PhilKnight

User:Ryulong/CPenguin

Archives

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

Thank you for all your help cleaning up this article and getting it up to standard :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GenUser (talk • contribs) 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Alex Jones is notable and does have an article here, he also has a radio program which is broadcast on numerous AM stations across the United States, as well over satellite radio, and on the Internet.

As for the education sentence, I didn't think it needed to be so long. The book barely mentions it. The reference originally referred to page 326 which is part of the book's index, so I changed it to page 47 which actually mentions evolution not being taught at Sea World. Either way though, the book barely mentions the subject and I don't think more than one sentence is needed.

--RucasHost (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, after I noticed my mistake, I posted on your talk page moments before your posted here. Addhoc (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. (^_^)

The book also mentions something about SeaWorld ignoring scientific controversy over the lifespans of marine animals, so I figured I could bundle the two and the bit about them claiming to be educational into one concise sentence and I have added it to the article. Secondly, the page which should be cited is actually page 149.

--RucasHost (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you opened this case with no mediator Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Australian Gospel Music Festival? Are you handling it or is it just pending a quick close? MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MBisanz, I'm not sure that mediation is required - the problem appears to be mostly about unsourced content. Addhoc (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addhoc: My concern has to do with academic rigor and method more than specific language in the present article. Bad edits can always be fixed by bringing good standards of academic method to bear. The reason for the present dispute is that editors are inconsistent in how they achieve the edits they make based on accepted standards within Wikipedia. Here are some examples:

1. One editor (Vassilis78) purposely and knowingly added false information to the article. Any mediator worth their salt would promptly issue a statement in their mediation that such behavior is unacceptable and contrary to good faith. So far there is silence on this egregious sin of editing!

2. Another editor (Cfrito) asserts one primary source on a subject as acceptable yet rejects a second primary source on the same subject. The difference between these two sources is they are on opposite sides of the same point of bias. This is a dual standard that has no place in objective editing.

These are examples showing the root problem causing dispute is editors applying poor academic standards.

During the course of this dispute both these editors have raised valid issues with material I am either completely responsible for or somewhat responsible for. As valid objections are raised I have edited accordingly, and have no problem doing so. This is how every editor should respond. But these two editors above have demonstrated poor skills of analysis, understanding the weight of sources, and have applied dual standards. Unavoidably this leads to conflict. If a mediator is going to squash such a dispute they have to cut to the chase and cut off the legs of demonstrably poor academic method. This is why I asked mediator Seddon69 to get on with testing the objectivity of edits offered by those involved in the dispute, including my edits. This is not rocket science. And, frankly, it is not very time consuming either for a preson with the right skill set. -Marvin Shilmer (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Addhoc (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the Toodles page wasan't a hoax per se -- according to this fansite, Toodles is indeed a legitimate Tom & Jerry character. Even though she doesn't seem to be notable, I think that your speedy deletion of the page was a bit hasty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for paying a visit to the anonymous troll's talk page. It seems to have worked -- at least for now. deeceevoice (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I spoke too soon. He's still at it. deeceevoice (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the love-making prohibition. No worries, I caught it! El_C 04:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern and time to make improvements in the New World Translation article. As regards your question, I will repeat what I have already mentioned in the discussion page:

Seddon 69: As I have repeatedly said, the entire article needs reformation. The article needs, I believe, more information for the NWT as translation project as a whole, not focusing too much one or two characteristics. As it is now, the article just mirrors the controversies for few points. The use of Jehovah's name in the New Testament and five verses that are used by Trinitarians is not the whole translation project. Many important linguistic and stylistic characteristics of the translation are not mentioned at all. Beyond that, criticism must be balanced according to the size of the whole article. NWT, as it happens with many religious articles in Wikipedia, has sadly proved to be a battlefield.--Vassilis78 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs much improvement but it would better remain locked and then we must give our proposals to the administrators. I feel very tired with the long debates that take place. In the near future I will make specific proposals, but for the moment I cannot be more detailed, because of the lack of time. The last thing I want to mention is my deep dissatisfaction for the Wikipedia's religious articles, generally speaking, which reflect great ignorance and plenty of fanaticism. NWT article is merely one of the many victims. I have seen similar things to many religious articles. Most people involved have strong religious feelings and just copy and paste whatever they find in the Internet that seem to support their position. Bibliography is usually very poor.

Best regards,

--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the Alfa Castaldi article.
I'm new to Wikipedia and I imagine it will take me some time to understand the system.
Grazie
Pcastaldi (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP vandal is banned user Flameviper. You can ask a CU to confirm, but I am 100% sure that this is Flameviper. Cheers. Miranda 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meaning this IP for clarification. Miranda 00:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miranda, thanks for explaining. Addhoc (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. However, my edit was not vandalism. You have wrongly labelled me -- this is an image from Commons, it is found originally in an illumination in a 2nd century text on the life of Jesus by the Domenici San Pietra. Thanks for your cooperation! --68.3.73.87 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]