User talk:Lhakthong/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phi Kappa Phi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Phi Kappa Phi. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 01:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lhakthong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have noticed that the two editors I have been disputing with are now suspected of sock puppetry (one the sock puppet and the other the puppeteer). I admit that when I first started on this page, I was ignorant of the rules and might (I can't remember at this point) have violated the 3 RR. However, once I became aware of the rules (including 3RR), I made a good faith effort to abide by them. My reversions regarding edits of the two suspected sock puppet accounts (if it was indeed two people) were done in an attempt to prevent material from being posted that was in violation of the three core content policies: verification, neutrality, and original research, reasons I think are exempt according to Wikipedia:3RR. The original offending claim in this dispute was later revealed to be a copyright violation. I actually thought I was gate keeping the integrity of the page. I even reverted my own comments a couple of times (at least) because I later thought they violated core content policy. I think all of this is evident in the discussion page, regardless of any rudeness that might also have been communicated. I'm sorry to have violated the 3RR. I hope you'll see that once I knew the rules, any violation I made wasn't intentional. I can wait the 24 hours on the block. That doesn't bother me. I'm more worried about a strike on my account because I was an ignorant newbie. Thank you in advance for your time.

Decline reason:

solid block. Stand by.. about to lengthen block for evasion Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Lhakthong (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32Actually, you should eb aware that there are not many exceptions to WP:3RR. The ONLY exceptions are reverting blatant vandalism (like blanking the article or inserting random swearwords) and on removing unsubstantiated information about living people. Other issues should ALWAYS be hammered out on the talk page, without repeatedly reverting. I think that it is clear that you understand why you are blocked, but I am not sure you fully understand the problem with edit warring. Can you assure us that you will not do the same edits again until after you have resolved your disputes on the relevent talk pages? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1:I fully support Aitias's actions as usual. However, I suspect you could be unblocked if you changed your reason to something along the lines of "Sorry - I didn't know. Won't do it again - especially on this article" and meant it. Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:OK, I think it is more clear to me what blatant vandalism is. And it is obvious to me why doing multiple reversions on changes that are grammatical or minor or substantive changes that do not involve content policy violations would be considered unwarranted reversions, but I want to make sure I'm clear on other cases that are more egregious. So, if there are blatant substantive violations of content policy like copyright violation or claims that are blatantly not neutral or blatantly not verifiable, they should not be deleted, but first some good faith attempt should be made on the talk page, then conflict resolution should be sought? I just want to have it straight so I don't make a mistake again because I wasn't clear on the rules. Thanks again. Lhakthong (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I found out about dispute resolution while I was researching Wikipedia policy yesterday, I did put in a request for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedian2). I know that this person has not yet had enough time to respond, but in general how long should I wait before moving to the next step? Should I try two or three people on that page first, waiting, for example, a week in between requests for a response? What is your recommendation? Thanks again for your time. Lhakthong (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you need me to promise not to violate the 3RR rule, I promise. But to help me understand policy, could you please answer the questions above? If you can't do it, can you tell me who I should ask? Sorry this is becoming so unwieldy. Lhakthong (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandalism Policy page says in the second paragraph, "For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." This was my point about the reinsertion of Magkantog's material. It is a controversial, unverifiable (and personal) opinion that was misleading in the way it was quoted. I also think give my argument in the below SPI, that Magkantog was working in concert with sockpuppets (virtual or human) to insert those comments. Although I thought I was wrong before, after reading that page I again think I was right. I'm not sure why I was so off base in accusing him of such, regardless of whether or not I've broken any rules. Do the warnings have to come from admins? Can anyone help me out here? Lhakthong (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally read more fully the page on edit warring. Up until this point I thought edit warring was defined specifically by the 3RR, because that was the only association I had of it. I understand now that 3RR is really just a violation that takes place within an edit war. I understand better now what it is, how I was engaged in it, and I promise to avoid engaging in it in the future. Lhakthong (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Block Request by Magkantog for Further Editing of Phi Kappa Phi/Indefinite Suspenesion of Lhakthong Account

Magkantog: Toddst1, The same user edited the same (well documented, salient and relevant) sentence for the third time. We all agreed yesterday to keep the second and third sentences as a consensus, but it has been edited twice again today. Specifically, we agreed to keep them because Lhakthong wanted to include the superlative "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi which I agreed to provided the dispute is noted and provided it is qualified by the sentence and citation about Phi Beta Kappa.

Phi Kappa Phi's respect derives in large part from Phi Beta Kappa's precedence (PKP copied the symbols, traditions, organization, membership, eto. of Phi Beta Kappa) and preeminence (PKP draws the bulk of its membership from the arts and sciences students which is the field of Phi Beta Kappa). Hence, the cited New York Times, Washington Post, Richard Current's history book, etc. indicate that Phi Kappa Phi is an "imitation" (their terminology) of Phi Beta Kappa. Even the name, Phi Kappa Phi (as you will see from the organization's national website) had to be changed three times between 1897 and 1901 to come as close as possible to PHI Beta KAPPA and gain respect or acceptance in colleges and universities without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. In some colleges, I understand Phi Kappa Phi uses deception to market themselves as Phi Beta Kappa because these colleges do not have Phi Beta Kappa chapters which is considered the hallmark of excellence in honor societies as documented in that third sentence. Hence, because PKP rides on the precedence and preeminence of the name of Phi Beta Kappa, it has gained (questionable) respect, particularly in colleges without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. Those are the colleges that Lhakthong cited, among others.

If you review/look at the user's IP address, it is the same one that (suspended user) Lhakthong had used when he was deleting the sentence and re-editing the article on February 24 and 25. Can you just put a block on the article after restoring that sentence for which consensus was already arrived yesterday per above Discussion Page? Additionally, I think the suspension of Lhakthong and his sockpuppet accounts should be made permanent. Thanks. Magkantog (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Block extended

{{unblock on hold|I looked at the other users that have made changes. Although it is difficult to prove I'm not the person from Cornell that made the edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:144.62.240.2), I can see why the geographic similarities would make admins suspect a sockpuppet. You'll notice, however, that the verbiage was entirely different than mine and it was made at a time that is inconsistent with my editing pattern. Given I only had a 24 hour block, I think were I to commit sockpuppeting from Cornell (a place Magkantog claims to be a professor -- see the PKP discussion page), I would have done it a long time ago when I wasn't already in trouble. The other IP address is apparently in Alabama (hit the "geolocate" link at the bottom of the user contributions page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.178.93.137), a geographic location hundreds of miles from where where my 173.21.20.187 is located. Magkatog gets blocked for a day while suspected of sockpuppeting, and I get it for a week. All the while I'm getting harassed on my own talk page by Magkatog (calling my wife a "meatpuppet") and trying to not get baited or continue the dispute (even on the Phi Kappa Phi discussion page, which I nonetheless was not blocked from) while I've been trying to get clear on the rules. And I'm getting penalized? I just don't get it. Lhakthong (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

I just looked up the term "meatpuppet". I get it. I thought it meant something more crude. So, I can see why the admins would think the Cornell address is a meatpuppet because of the geographic location, so I really don't think, regardless of anything, that I can convince anyone otherwise, and I'm appreciative that Wikipedia has such policies. But am I being held accountable for the Alabama address as well? I've somehow been spending all this time conspiring with someone 1,000 miles away from me? Wouldn't they have been more active during the dispute were that the case or argued on my behalf were that the case? Lhakthong (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went to leave this note on your talk page and saw that I was banned from editing it. I also noticed someone with a NY address arguing on my behalf that has a very short edit history. I think I'm being set up by Magkantog for a ban. If you look at the discussion page of PKP, you'll notice that when Magkantog accused me of being another person ("The user above adopts multiple identities (173.21.20.207, Lhaktong) to get his way around consensus-building" when I established my account, I readily said "I did not take up multiple identities. I just formed my new account. I'm sorry if it came off that way". Would I have done that if I was trying to deceive people? I don't know how else to say this, so I'm just going to say it. Either these other people are real or I actually think he is impersonating other people who agree with me. I'm not so stupid as to continue to recruit meatpuppets or establish sockpuppets when when the vice is getting tighter and the ban longer. I would have to be totally masochistic to do that. I just got here and just established my account. If there's anything I can do to protect myself, please let me know. Seriously. Lhakthong (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I just realized something else. I know (now) that I brought admin attention to the PKP page prematurely by inappropriately claiming vandalism. And I know now that I violated the 3RR. That being said, would I really bring admin attention to a page if I knew I was breaking rules, and then, once admins were watching it, continue and more repeatedly break the rules? Lhakthong (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, after finding out I was being held accountable for it, a friend of ours just rather embarrassingly admitted that he was the Cornell College edit. I didn't tell him to do it, and he didn't tell me he did it until he found out I got in trouble for it. He's terribly sorry. Had I wanted to recruit an army, I was out to dinner with several friends on Friday night and you would have seen more activity than that from the area. Next time I talk to people about something like this, I'll be sure to explicitly request that people stay away from it. However, because the only people other than my spouse to whom I've talked about this have been face-to-face at dinner on Friday, I'm still not sure what to make of the New York and Alabama IPs. Lhakthong (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)}}

Toddst1:If you are serious, compile a WP:SPI submission here on your talk page, requesting checkuser and I will submit it on your behalf. Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:I am very serious, and I am very glad you all have software to help you figure out these kinds of things. Now I know what identity theft feels like. I took a quick peak at the SPI page. It looks like it might take a while to read up and for write an SPI, and it is late for me now, so I'll get on it tomorrow. Thanks again for your help. At risk of seeming sycophantic, now that I understand what a meatpuppet is, and I've seen all the other new editors pop up defending my perspective, I totally understand why you are blocking me. Were I you, I'd being doing the same thing. I just want to get this cleared up. Lhakthong (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1Ok. I've marked your unblock request as "on hold" until you get back so as not to tie up other admins. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Magkantog: Toddst1, I am dropping you a quick note because of the falsehoods that user Lhakthong is issuing in his effort to get unblocked:
1)Lhakthong claims I (magkantog) was blocked for a day. I never was (see account talk/history, etc.).
2)Lhakthong's IP address (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) and the IP address of user 144.62.240.2 (also in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) who edited the same sentence yesterday, 2/28/09, are both located in the same state of Iowa, the same Linn County and the same metropolitan region. I find this highly suspicious especially considering that the same exact sentence in less than half a day was edited/deleted by both users.
3)The third user (144.62.240.2), who also edited on 2/28/09, is located in Alabama. But if you check the Discussion Page on Phi Kappa Phi dated February 24, 2009, and review the line of reasoning and points pursued by this user 144.62.240.2, they flow consistently into Lhakthong's own arguments over seven hours later on the same day. There is no difference in verbiage really. Lhakthong is in Iowa but it is possible that he has someone from Alabama who did part of the posts for him. People could always email their posts to their family or friends in another state to post for them on Wikipedia.
4)Lhakthong falsely claims I am from Cornell College which is in Mount Vernon, Iowa (also in the Cedar Rapids metro area). If you look at the Discussion Page he is citing, I said there very clearly that I was from Cornell University (by coincidence almost the same name) which is in Ithaca, New York close to New Jersey as our (me and colleague George sherman) IP addresses would show. I even said in that Discussion that we used to have a Phi Kappa Phi chapter at Cornell University; Cornell College does not have a Phi Kappa Phi chapter so how can I be there.
5) Lhakthong claims I used sockpuppets to set him up. I never did. He just probably wants to detract attention from #2 above. Let us wait to see what the SPI will show.
I would not have bothered to write these things, but Lhakthong "brought me in" again. Thanks.Magkantog (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Report date March 1 2009, 03:25 (UTC)

{{SPIcat}}

Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Toddst1 (talk)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Magkantog has admitted on my talk page that George sherman 34 is a colleague of his who is working in concert to achieve a specific end, stated below, even though prior to that George sherman 34 claimed on the discussion page to be from another university and presented himself as a third party trying to achieve consensus. After Magkantog was given a soft block for violating the 3RR, sock/"meat" puppet George sherman 34 reinserted the offending claim in order to be "fair to both parties".

Magkantog's first contribution to the Phi Kappa Phi page was to revert a delete (not made by me) so that a non-neutral and unverifiable phrase placed by 173.15.144.102 meant to diminish the reputation of Phi Kappa Phi could be reinserted. The original insert by 173.15.144.102 also had a statement regarding Golden Key Honor Society, another society Magkantog brings up repeatedly in the discussion page. Over the past 12 months, similar reverts trying to insert very similar, very specific statements meant to denigrate or dismiss the reputation of Phi Kappa Phi in relation to Phi Beta Kappa were made by:

Shelly wilson 3 at 23:47, 5 November 2008
Shelly wilson 3 at 14:43, 18 December 2008
Shelly wilson 3 at 04:12, 17 January 2009
173.15.144.102 at 23:14, 10 February 2009
Magkantog at 16:14, 19 February 2009
70.106.117.53 between 17:15 and 23:41, 22 February 2009
George sherman 34 at 18:43, 26 February 2009

Plus the ensuing reversion edits by Magkantog, George sherman 34, and 70.106.117.53 made in concert since then. 70.106.117.53 appears on 22 Feb 2009 in the page edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Kappa_Phi&diff=prev&oldid=272527934), and edits in the discussion page and on my talk page on 1 March 2009 will show edits made from this IP are in fact Magkantog. All of the above have short edit histories and all with the minor exception of Shelly wilson 3 seem related to the exclusive purpose of inserting the aforementioned offending claim.

All of the above IP addresses are located in the NY/NJ area, where Magkantog claims to be from, with the exception of 74.178.93.137 (Alabama)

Given the above, I also feel that 74.178.93.137 and 166.214.16.81, if not real people, are also sockpuppets or "meatpuppets" of Magkantog being used to undermine the validity of my account in their use to imitate sockpuppets of mine. You can check them against me, too, if you like. Lhakthong (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU|D|E|New}}    Requested by Toddst1 (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions


The above unsubmitted SPI

Toddst1:I think you need to continue to work on that. You need to make it more concise (you'll get WP:TLDR otherwise) and please use the templates at the top. Take a look at some of the other SPIs for examples. Also, don't confuse a SPI about you with a SPI about Magkantog. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:Thanks for the advice. I hope it has been adequately revised. What would I do about an SPI for Magkantog? Lhakthong (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

Toddst1:I am unblocking you so that you may directly edit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Magkantog. Please be extremely careful as you will be re-blocked without warning if disruptive editing recurs. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:Will do. Sorry for the mistake. I edited above correctly now, but I was never unblocked for the SPI page - did I make another violation? Why is my prose in the "block extended" box repeated twice? My editing screen shows it only once?
Does disruptive editing mean continuing our debate on my talk page or do you mean on the PKP page or discussion page? I thought I would respond to Magkantog's reply (moved to below) just so I can try to get clear on what his concern is. I'll try to tone it down. Or should I just not engage at all? Lhakthong (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Communications to Toddst1

Lhakthong:FYI: Perhaps Magkantog just misspoke, but he said "If you look at the Discussion Page he is citing, I said there very clearly that I was from Cornell University ... which is in Ithaca, New York close to New Jersey as our (me and colleague George sherman) IP addresses would show." However, on the discussion page, George sherman 3 said "I am familiar with both honor societies since we have them both on campus (University of Wisconsin)." The University of Wisconsin is not in New York or New Jersey. It is in Wisconsin. Lhakthong (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog: "Reply to Lhakthong: No one ever said or hinted or claimed that Wisconsin is in or near New York or New Jersey. As you can read from your one and only quote, my colleague merely said that the University of Wisconsin (at Madison, that is) has chapters of both Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi. What he meant was that he currently teaches as visiting professor at Cornell, BUT did one of his degrees and is also a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin. I do not see anything controversial about the above quote. If you are trying to imply sockpuppetry, then I am sorry for you. As you will see in the Discussion Page, in one of the earlier exchanges, I even said there that "george sherman just got ahead of me," because he alerted me to some of your rebuttals. Why will he or I be a sockpuppet???
Toddst1, I think Lhakthong is fishing for more falsehoods in addition to the five I pointed out above, so it might be good to keep his user account suspended.Magkantog (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magkantog (talk • contribs)

Lhakthong:I'm a bit confused about why Magkantog doesn't have a hard block. George sherman 34 was pretending to be a neutral party from the University of Wisconsin in the PKP discussion page, but now Magkanthog says he's actually a colleague of his at Cornell University (if George sherman 34 is even a second person) who is acting in concert in order to achieve a particular agenda on the PKP page. And, although Magkantog knew enough about it in concept and name -- with such a short edit history mind you -- to start accusing me of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, he didn't seem to think that George sherman 34 would be the same? The Alabama and NY IPs still are a riddle (see above for the resolution of the Cornell College edit), and Magkantog is openly admitting George sherman 34 to be a sock/(meat)puppet to avoid consensus building and to evade his 3RR block (george claiming to reinsert the offending comment to be "fair to both parties" that were blocked)? After I tell you about the Shelly wilson 3 account on my talk page in requesting an SPI on Magkantog, her edit history on the PKP page magically disappears (maybe this is you sorting things out)? Why am I the only one with a hard block? I've admitted wrong doing readily when I understand what it is I did wrong; he knowingly violates the rules and gets away with it. I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but I really don't understand what's going on. Lhakthong (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog::REPLY:
Toddst1: Lhakthong keeps on mudraking. He keeps twisting what was obvious or already explained to him earlier. Sherman teaches in the same college as I do BUT he is visiting professor from Wisconsin (something Lhakthong keeps hiding). What precisely is Lhakthong's problem with sherman? I do not know wilson (if that is her real name) but he or she could always use the same shared IP.
Let Lhakthong try as he wishes but he will never be able to prove sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or whatever he wishes to imagine in the Phi Kappa Phi debate. This is the last time that I will deal with the sherman issue because he keeps trying to sidetrack the debate and he does not succeed.Magkantog (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Lhakthong: There are 100,000 active members and 300 chapters of Phi Kappa Phi. I'm sure I'm not the only one with an interest in the Phi Kappa Phi page, especially when it comes to deleting information that seems to be superfluous to the Lead. How many people do you think are interested in inserting the claim that Phi Beta Kappa is the most prestigious of all honor societies in the Lead of the Phi Kappa Phi page? It doesn't take a statistician to figure it out.Lhakthong (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:If it makes a difference to the PKP page, I'm pretty sure the comments on the discussion page from 71.192.30.167 and from 12.201.59.34 (no edits) in August were from me and from publicly accessible IP's, and I already stated that comments and edits from 173.21.20.207 were from me. All of this obviously was before I established an account to try out being a Wikipedia editor. When I get editing privileges back, should I re-sign those statements as "Lhakthong" or would that be considered suspicious? Lhakthong (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

LHAKTHONG and MAGKANTOG still ascertaining the primary concern:

Magkantog:After all this time, you still do not or do not seem to want to get the entire point. There are several colleagues of ours here in Ithaca (sherman and I are only two among many) and other nearby colleges in NY, NJ, Vermont, etc. who are trying to help point out the imitation (directly or indirectly, consciously or not) of Phi Beta Kappa for several reasons that we have been repeating over and over again in the Discussion pages of Phi Kappa Phi: 1) Phi Kappa Phi in several colleges rides on the prestige, respect, precedence, etc. of Phi Beta Kappa; readers need to know the possible reasons for that, given sufficient documentation to that effect from books, newspapers like New York Times, etc., as footnoted in the Phi Kapa Phi article; 2) Phi Beta Kappa has waged legal battles (both completed and ongoing) against imitators, and other imitating organizations might be close to getting into legal trouble as well; and 3) as noted in the Discussion pages, we do not wish to belittle Phi Kappa Phi (or in your words, make it look "lesser") -- and we have recognized its contributions to scholarship in the discussion pages -- BUT we need to qualify your sentence on "respect" if you are insisting/agitating to include it. Afer all, both "prestige" and "respect" are favorable descriptors.

So I do not know what is so baffling with several IPs/user accounts pointing out the imitation or possible imitation of Phi Beta Kappa. Furthermore, some of these IPs are "open for public use" so they may not necessarily deal with Phi Kappa Phi or Phi Beta Kappa. In any case, with respect to Phi Kappa Phi and Phi Beta Kappa, our purpose is to gain public awareness and/or redress of imitation or possible imitation of Phi Beta Kappa (see the example of Compaq in the PKP discussion page, or thru this link, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-700638.html). We do not engage in sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or whatever you are imagining by asking for an SPI. We are certain you will be convinced that none of us are sockpuppets, etc., or are engaged in sockpuppetry, etc. after you get the SPI. I will not write again in your talk page, unless you, for some reason, refer to me again Magkantog (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:It's baffling because even the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, ranked as a top tier university in general by US News -- one of your sources -- (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/1775), but also a top or elite university as judged by the same source in the following: #1 in Library and Information Studies, #5 in Engineering, #5 in Psychology, #5 in Computer Science, #7 in Chemistry, #8 in Physics, #11 in Education Policy, #18 in Mathematics, #19 in English, #22 in History, and #22 in Poli Sci., says the following about their honor programs (http://illinois.edu/academics/honors/index.html):
"The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recognizes more than 50 independent honor societies.
Among the prestigious national honor societies with campus chapters at Illinois are Tau Beta Pi (Engineering), Beta Gamma Sigma (Business), Kappa Delta Pi (Education), Phi Beta Kappa (LAS), Phi Kappa Phi (campus-wide), and the freshman honor societies Alpha Lambda Delta, Gamma Sigma Delta (ACES), and Phi Eta Sigma."
PKP is chosen as one of the top 8 of 50 of that make their way onto such a "top, elite" campus, and yet you somehow feel the need to qualify the claim that PKP is one of the most prestigious honor societies by talking about Phi Beta Kappa as the most prestigious of them all? I have yet to understand. This top university (in fact no university source I can find) doesn't seem to think such a qualification is necessary. Are you claiming all the universities I've cited in the past are trying to mislead their students? Are you claiming a top-tier university (and for several specific programs an "elite" university) has somehow confused the respect of Phi Kappa Phi with that of Phi Beta Kappa? Please, explain it to me. Maybe if I understand what your underlying concern is I can try to assuage it. Lhakthong (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Magkantog:This is the last time I will even bother to repeat myself and sherman (who I have noted twice above and in the Discussion page as a visiting colleague from Wisconsin).

I NEVER EVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULD NOT INDICATE "RESPECT" FOR PHI KAPPA PHI. WHAT I SAID IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE QUALIFIED BY MENTIONING PHI BETA KAPPA.

Now, U of Illinois at Urbana does not belong to the top 10 or 20 national universities in the US New and World Report (I kept referring to the top 10 or 20 in the PKP Discussion page). Illinois is one of the top in CERTAIN academic programs like those you cited above. Natinally, the top 10 are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Northwestern, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, which all do not have PKP chapters. But that is beside the point. Using your own U of Illinois illustration above, it only reinforces what we have said over and over again: The Phi Kappa Phi article should mention Phi Beta Kappa as it is now, in the same manner that your quote from Illinois includes/mentions Phi Beta Kappa and other honor societies. Got it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magkantog (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lhakthong:UIUC is considered "Top Tier" by US News. That's one of your chosen authoritative sources. But now, as you have done so before on the discussion page, you shift your criteria and choose your own authority as authoritative. Whether it is not in the top 10 or 20 or whatever cut-off you arbitrarily decide in order to retro-rationalize what you a priori posit as true is not consistent with a sound argument. Professor to professor, that should be quite clear. And now that I've adequately found your concern about PKP being an imitator that uses "deception" (biased language) to recruit to be relatively unsubstantiated by pointing the opposite case from sources you deem authoritative, you move to another reason. First, I could not state that PKP was considered "one of the most prestigious" because it was not a verifiable claim, at least not according to your standards, then I write the claim so that it is clearly verifiable "several universities claim that…" and cite some universities that make that claim, then you say that the public universities I cite for it are "third-rate" (which clearly smacks of bias), then I find a university to cite that is not "third rate", in fact it is "top tier" as judged by a source considered authoritative by you, and then you want to then dismiss the point as "beside the point" and say it really has to do with mentioning all the prestigious universities. In all cases the solution for you is to mention PBK as "the most" prestigious honor society of all, a claim that seems totally gratuitous on a page of a different subject-matter, and I cannot see it as anything other than a politically-motivated agenda, especially considering all of the other (virtual or real) users and IP address I found trying to insert the same claim on the page. Please convince me it is not concerted activity to pursue a politically-motivated agenda. I do not understand why mentioning the relatively uncontroversial fact that PKP is one of the most respected honor societies, let alone the verifiable fact that several university websites state it as such, including one listed as "top tier" (a requirement you set) by a source you claim to be authoritative in these matters, still requires the statement that PBK is "the most prestigious" anywhere in the entry, let alone in the Lead. Tell me why. Wasn't it originally because you thought PKP was an imitator that uses deception to recruit its members and you needed to make sure that such was clear on the Wikipedia page? That's what it sounded like in the discussion page. Are you suggesting now, following your pointing to my Illinois quote, that we should mention all respected honor societies every time we mention that one of them is just that, specifically stating, again, that PBK is "the most" respected? That sounds like a new point to me. Even when PBK was listed as one of the other original and respected honor societies, you and your puppets have to insert "most prestigious". So, I don't think it has do do with just listing them all. Even if that were the case, do you think that PBK then needs to be mentioned on every prestigious honor society page and listed as "the most"? Should we put PKP and other honor societies on the PBK page? It also sounded to me before that you wanted to make an entry on the influence of PBK on PKP (and, by extension, other prestigious honor societies). However, this seems like it would be a great entry on the history of honor societies in America in general to talk about how PBK gave birth to all the other ones, and therefore their prestige ultimately derives from PBK. Is that the case? Please, be my guest and do so. It sounds interesting. I just can't get clear on a very specific, sound and logically consistent reason (not rationalization) from you on why there's a problem with making a verifiable claiming that PKP is one of the most respected honor societies on its own entry page and why such a claim requires reference to PBK, as "the most prestigious". Disabuse me of my ignorance. Lhakthong (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wesleyan University is ranked 14 and they ave a Phi Kappa Phi chapter. Not good enough for you? You going to shift it to the top ten now? Lhakthong (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On the point of why saying "PBK is the most prestigious" is still misleading

Lhakthong:The fact that single journalists in the NYT or Washington Post mentions PBK as "the most prestigious" is not the same as either organization carrying out a survey or study that finds that most faculty or most universities or most of the American public find PBK to be such. The article is not about PBK being the most prestigious, it is mentioned in passing to give context. It was not reporting on a study finding that PBK is the most prestigious. It is actually misleading to attribute the claim of one person at an organization to the organization as a whole. Were the organization qua organization to have made the claim, one would have to write "The NYT has stated that PBK…"[NYT citation] If the NYT were reporting a survey that came out, one would have to write "X study reported that the majority of university faculty found PBK to be the most prestigious"[NYT citation]. That's verifiable and not misleading. A singular journalist at the NYT or Washington Post is not the organization as a whole, and a singular journalist's incidental descriptor is not representative of an authoritative source that it is "the most prestigious" without qualification. Find me a university website (not one of PBK's own chapter webpages) that says that, and then cite it appropriately so that it is a verifiable claim. Or find a survey that confirms such a point. Maybe there's one in The Chronicle of Higher Education. If Dom Deluise said veal is best tasting meat, making an unqualified statement "Veal is the best tasting meat", tout court, and then citing Dom Deluise is misleading, even he's a professional chef. Dom is one particular person, not popular opinion, giving subjective opinion. One would have to say "Dom Deluise has found veal to the the best tasting meat". Similarly, you would have to say "Emily M. Berstein of the NYT has said that PBK is the most prestigious" or "Several journalists have said…". When written that way, appropriate to the citations given, one can see how weak that claim really is and why it would seem suspicious in the lead of a PKP article. Remember, Wikipedia policy is about verifiability, not truth, and placing "herin quoted" and citing sources that do not confirm or make verifiable the claim does not save you from making a misleading and unverifiable claim. The same can be said said for you stating that PKP "imitated" PBK, a claim you didn't quote as a singular person's opinion or explicitly state as such, but stated it as verifiable, universal fact; and given the inappropriate use of quotations and phrasing, you effectively claimed someone else's statement as your own (plagiarism, intentional or not). Furthermore, citing PBK chapter webpages, regardless of whether they sit on university servers, as citations for this claim is like me claiming I'm the greatest in the world and citing my own diary, even if its published on Oxford University Press. That is completely inappropriate and misleading. I am sincerely utterly perplexed how anyone with a PhD would not understand this. Reading Magkantog's discussion points and the NYT article, I think his primary concern is that potential PBK members are being lost to other organizations (PKP is an imitator of PBK that uses "deception" to recruit its members, and making claims that judge PKP as "lesser" because it has chapters at "third-rate" universities or not at universities he alone considers to be the best or cited from sources he alone considers good enough), which is not likely because PKP is an imitator but because being selected as in the top 10% (or 7.5%, depending) of all disciplines on an entire campus and not just from LAS is a huge honor; and it is becoming more and more clear that he and his sock/meatpuppets are trying to attenuate the loss of potential Phi Beta Kappa membership to Phi Kappa Phi by using Wikipedia as a mobilization point to ensure the reputation of PKP on Wikipedia is diminished as much as possible, i.e., one can't make claims about PKP being "one of the most prestigious", no matter how verifiable, without mentioning PBK as "the most prestigious"; or, as the ultimatum given by Magkantog or one of the other sockpuppets, there should be no claim that it is one of the most prestigious at all (regardless of verifiability). It is utterly, utterly perplexing, or completely crystal clear what is going on here. Lhakthong (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Phi Kappa Phi has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Marek.69 talk 05:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still getting the hang of all of this. Trying to make the archive alone was pretty stressful. I thought I lost it all at one point. Thank the heavens for reverts and edit histories. Lhakthong (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

sock tag

I have removed it.

Thanks for having faith. I'm doing my best to get (with) the program. Lhakthong (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Phil of ed page

Sure thing. It still needs quite a bit of help...it would be great to find a few more editors to bring some substantial content. hgilbert (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly can't comment on it all authoritatively. I've just tried to put markers in to signal where others might want to elaborate. I'm trying to enlist a few colleagues just to put in a few minutes here and there to help with filling it out. We'll see what happens. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Magkantog

 Clerk note: Thank you for your attempt to clarify this case.

I regret, however, that your attempt has not made the case much clearer at all.

In making your clarification, you simply copied and pasted a new version from your own user space, and REPLACED the whole case with the new version.

Please do NOT edit cases in this manner. If you need to add information or clarification, you must add the clarification to the existing text. You must never remove text from the page that is already there. In particular, you must not remove Clerk actions (such as declining Checkuser).

If you need to add comments, add them directly to the page. Don't copy and paste them from elsewhere.

The case as it stands still consists of a large number of statements about what went on, without diffs to back them up. Without those diffs, somebody investigating the case will have to spend many hours seeking the information, and that just isn't on!

Mayalld (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lhakthong. You have new messages at Mayalld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have today submitted the questioned editing and wording of Phi Kappa Phi for arbitration for your information. You can check highlighted page and respond if you wish.Angtitimo (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Phi Kappa Phi. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. You are correct when you write in your edit statement that it is better to discuss the matter on the article's talk page first, and only after reaching a consensus should the matter be taken up in the article edits.. --Ericdn (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Human development

Greetings!
Your recent edit to Philosophy of education included a link to a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks! twirligigT tothe C 02:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Phi

I am happy to take your Phi Kappa Phi Mediation Cabal case. I look forward to seeing your participation. Regards, Jd027talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a proposal onto the page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Phi Kappa Phi. Please add your thoughts. Jd027talk 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Phi Kappa Phi MEDCAB case

It seems that a mutual agreement (leaving the article as is) has been reached regarding your Phi Kappa Phi dispute, and I'm happy to have made a closing statement here, and closed the case. If you ever need to talk to me, feel free to leave a message at my talk page at any time. Regards, and happy editing, Jd027talk 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

hi, just wondering if you have a recent copy of Baird's Manual of College Fraternities??? El Johnson (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The most recent edition I could find was the 20th edition published in 1991. I checked it out from our local library through an inter-library loan system. --Lhakthong (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry for jumping in) The most recent version of Baird's is the 20th edition which came out in 1991. The Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities page deals with when the versions came out and the current lack of plans for putting out another. BTW, I do have a copy of the 1991 Bairds at home. If you have a specific question (either of you), let me know. Otherwise, I suggest interlibrary loan from a University or College nearby.Naraht (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Society

Hello, Lhakthong. I've seen the Mediation Cabal case requested for Phi Beta Kappa Society here, and I'm glad to take the case. It appears that you have engaged in discussion about the issue, and I have listed you as a party. I have reviewed the relevant discussions and am looking forward to working towards an ultimate resolution. Regards, Jd027 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Shambhala wiki

Hi Lhakthong, I'm working on an unofficial reference wiki for Shambhala. I'd love your help with that if that's interesting to you as a path of study and practice. I just renamed the site yesterday from tanjur to labelingthoughts.org and would love both your feedback and your thoughts on the project. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'm not sure what I can offer or how much time I can give, but I'll stop by and check it out. Because I've lived about 300 miles from the nearest Sangha for the past 5 years, my knowledge of the vocabulary and discourse has atrophied quite a bit. So, I might end up using your wiki for a reference for myself more than contributing substantive edits. --Lhakthong (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That's really what I was hoping it will be used for, clarifying the language and distinctions. We have so many terms and usages, it's kind of amazing. Thanks for taking a look! :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lhakthong/Archive_1&oldid=1143133706"