User talk:PhilKnight/Archive39

CSD Q
Any idea why Buster Keaton and a bunch of his films show up on CSD but don't have speedy tags on the pages themselves? Thanks - Frank  |  talk  19:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like Template:Buster Keaton got speedied, it would put all those into the category as well, since it was transcluded. Null edits should take them out of the category (as would removing the now red-linked transclusion which would probably be ideal). – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Null edit worked on the first few, but then I realized I actually had to remove from the pages too.  Frank  |  talk  20:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:FindSources
Well, I looked and it says "9. Links to the results pages of search engines, Search aggregators, or RSS feeds."

I was not aware that this applied to looking through GoogleBooks also. After all the template does not produce a search engine results page, but a range of books corresponding to the search, citations in Scholar, or news items as the case may be. Was this discussed in the consensus you alluded to earlier? I gather you deleted the templates again because this consensus does exist?--Meieimatai 00:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight, As I told you 2 days ago, I feared the block would not improve the situation. Please, read her answers here :. The first think she made after her block was to go back on the article and see her last "summary" comment here :. I was called as mediator by and my conclusion is that Ashley kennedy3 cannot discuss and is extremelly disruptive even if she has access to a lot of 2nd sources. I want also to point out I cannot take care of this any more because she has the feeling I am the "bad guy" (against her) and this will finish badly for all the people involved and I don't want problems. (This last comment is for a future arbitration I fear will soon come). Thank you, Ceedjee (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, could you also consider this :
 * Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As the talk page seems to get ignored. The way that Ceedjee has been selective in the use of Benny and indeed ignoring all other sources has left me with no choice but to add the POV tag.....I do not believe that ceedjee is out to get me but it is strange that ceedjee uses POV tags delete article strategy against any article not written on a purely Israeli POV. Ceedjee need to realise I'm male...I can discuss but the removal of referenced work without discussion is disruptive..and a practice that ceedjee indulges in quite often. Ceedjee makes reference to discussion pages but then not a discussion from ceedjee but merely a statement by ceedjee that he is right and that any other point of view is thereby incorrect...and then normally followed up with Benny is the only source that is allowed to be used....even to the point of saying that I am not allowed to use a book unless Benny has used it and then only use the benny reference. as in []...I don't know about ceedjee's circumstances but in my part of the world one is allowed to read any books one likes ...as far as I am aware the wiki policy is that any book published and verifiable is allowed to be used and not just benny morris..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Phil, excuse my intrusion here.


 * Ashley, I'm not going to intervene any more on this, but to remark that. "it is strange that ceedjee uses POV tags delete article strategy against any article not written on a purely Israeli POV. Ceedjee need to realise I'm male" is to make a travesty of what is a good record. He has been, in my experience, a very good, honest and fair editor, ready to listen to his textual adversaries' arguments. Any article is pure nonsense, as I am on the 'pro-Palestinian' side and with many articles have found his intelligence well-informed and equilibrated.


 * I have said on the Beit Jala page that some edits by several people against you are not reasonable. That Ceedjee is strongly attached to Morris's historiographical value makes him sensitive to any editing that does not reflect secondary source review of primary sources of the kind Morris excels in. This may induce a certain partiality. But you generalize and in doing so, do Ceedjee an injustice. As to mistaking you for a woman (Ashley is a name that misled me in the same way) that is an error many made, not ceedjee, who is francophone.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever what will come out of this, I want to point out that I will not intervene any more in the debate about Beit Jala or the (alleged) 1949-1956 palestinian exodus. My field of expertise only concerns the 1948 war. I was called as mediator. I didn't succeed in establishing a dialogue with Ashley. (Sorry to have thought he was a women, Ashley sounds feminine in french ears, such as ceedjee sounds feminine in English ears...). I share Nishidani's analysis that neutrality issue was not only on his side. But Ashley didn't notice I edited very few this article and rather only try to select the best version and try to discuss and explain wp:policy with him during hours. Reasons I assume for which I am his target. There is clearly an attitude issue, here and I don't want to be involved any more. Ceedjee (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC) But you did do an awful lot of reverts to a version that had been edited for Israeli POV you did not edit for NPOV you did not ask for consensus and merely demanded acquiescence to an Israeli POV. You had the book available to check. You seemed to to check but went straight to revert. And then complain about POV tags being added to an article that is blatantly Israeli POV... On a subject that you claim no expertise you went for delete article...I do edit for neutrality see Operation Bi'ur Hametz see all the Palestinian towns villages articles what I don't use is "CAMERA" style articles that Gilabrand uses. Benny is not my favourite archivist historian and so I use Avi Shlaim more and I do have some Palestinian historians books which seems to bring out an unfavourable reaction in you...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Find template
Thanks for that. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you.
I'm afraid circumstances at this point (I have made warnings on my page, on the Lehi page and on elsewhere, but they fail to convince my interlocutor to desist from malicious distortions of my words and record) compel me to report Amoruso. Since this violates one of my principles, I will simply state my case and shut up, and leave it to others to adjudicate and argue, if they think it worth it. I was told, when I endeavoured to get this resolved informally on the Admin Notification (?) page that I should have made my complaint elsewhere. I simply do not know where I should register this, and only ask you if you could provide me with the correct link to the appropriate page. My apologies for this trouble.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nishidani, the most appropriate noticeboard is probably arbitration enforcement.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and again, my apologies.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm laughing. I give up, unconditional surrender. I can read several difficult and obscure languages, but can't navigate my way through that Kafkian labyrinth. My esteem for those who can, irrespective of the merits of reporting, rises by the minute. Perhaps for mmy conscience, just as well! Cheers, Phil. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calendar Girl (Batman: The Animated Series)
Would you please userfy this article for me? Thanks. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, there were more delete 'votes', and the delete reasoning was far more compelling. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you will make a userfied version of the article in my userspace, i.e. User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Calendar Girl (Batman: The Animated Series)? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Because Everyking's last question regarded sourcing, I wanted to take one more hard look beyond Google to see if I can find any other sources in publications.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
PhilK, Thank you for the protection on THe Allstonians page. I love Wiki and will continue to contribute. Thank you, Nigel

I mentioned you in an AN/I report I filed against User:Scjessey
You play a minor role in that incident, involving your rejection of lifting the block on WorkerBee74 that I discussed with you before, but you may want to see or even comment on the report here: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Noroton (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad tidings lifted from other users?
Hi PhilK, is it possible that the numerous barnstars and other dialogue on this recently blocked talk page were lifted from other contributors' pages? Sorry to trouble you, but if a vandal cut and pastes others' content and passes it off to their own credit...If I'm wrong, my apologies, but I found at least one barnstar, that of June 1, 2007, was originally awarded to someone else's account, that of an active editor. Cheers, 99.173.23.182 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the barnstars seem to have been awarded to other editors, and then copied, so I've removed them.PhilKnight (talk)
 * Fast work! When I kept a steady account, I was proud of my baubles, and aggravated when a vandal copied them to their own page. Thank you. 99.173.23.182 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Still unresolved
The disputes with Ashley Kennedy3 on Israel-Palestine articles have continued unabated since the warning was added to her page (and mine). Now she is libeling an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, on the al-Tantura page, because of her objection to a certain quote from an interview with him that ruins her argument. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? She has also continued her pattern of creating new articles with information lifted verbatim from a source after it is deleted from other pages as inappropriate (and probably a copyright violation). The latest article is Beit Jala reprisal raid, which I tagged for deletion (a tag that someone promptly removed). I hate to bother you, but this is getting to the point where something has to be done. Thanks.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gilabrand, thanks for letting me know about this. Regarding Benny Morris and al-Tantura, I gather the problem has largely been resolved. I agree the article should primarily be about the geographical location, so the 'peanuts' quote shouldn't be included. Regarding the Beit Jala reprisal raid, I think Ynhockey's approach of trying to improve the article is worth pursuing. I'll leave a note for Ashley regarding the concerns you've mentioned. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Ashley refuses to quit. She keeps reverting sourced information on Beit Jala reprisal raid (took place in 1952) and introducing some source she has found for 1953. Asking her to read the source more carefully doesn't help. She continues to use edit summaries that accuse people of POV. She messes up every single article she touches, putting in irrelevant information and engaging in WP:SYN. I have tried very hard to remain civil, but her disruptive edits are impossible to ignore. I don't think any of the notices left on her page have made the slightest impact. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This problem has not been resolved, so I don't believe it should be archived. If you can't help, I would appreciate your pointing me toward someone who can. --Gilabrand (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Hi Gilabrand, I didn't see your post of the 29th, obviously if I had, I wouldn't have archived. I'll have a look at the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) As it turns out, the "she" is a he, and the edit warring continues with his constant violation of every Wikipedia policy on the books. At the moment, see Beit Jala reprisal raid, but every other article he has touched will show the same aggressive, disruptive editing. Allowing him to continue on his merry way is turning Wikipedia into a travesty and a farce--Gilabrand (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC). The disruption continues and this editor is getting crazier and more rabid by the day. Why are my complaints being ignored????--Gilabrand (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philknight, I am aware that sysops are not there to keep the "kinders garden" quiet but I would like to add my voice to Gilabrand's (just 2 line here above - 15 minutes ago) It is not possible to discuss with Ashley. I have been trying for 2 weeks to discuss with her/him and I have been quarreling with her/him the whole day. user:Nishidani and user:Ynhockey share our mind. We are 4 editors with quite different views of the I-P topic and who have already had strong disagreements on some issue. But we could discuss. Ashley just seems not to understand. What can be done ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Oups. I have just noticed you blocked her. Hope this will help. Thank you. Do you think somebody could "assist" her to explain wikipedia's principles ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've given Ashley a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, if we could find someone to adopt Ashley, that would probably help. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, the moment the block was lifted, this editor went back to edit warring and blanket reversions of various articles to what he claims is the correct one on the basis of OR (such as his claim that Benny Morris doesn't speak Arabic, so this or that bit of information cannot be true, or the fact that Benny Morris is unreliable and therefore could not have really meant what he wrote, plus engaging in edits that fall under the category of WP:UNDUE, adding various gruesome details that do not appear in the cited source, which he may have found somewhere else, considering his constant use of WP:SYN. The spelling, capitalization & grammar mistakes he introduces at every click of the keyboard are a further nuisance. I cannot believe how so many editors are bending over backward to appease him and turn a blind eye to the volatile atmosphere he has created on Wikipedia, to the point where editors have begun namecalling in exasperation. If something were done long ago to nip this disruption in the bud, things would never have come to this. --Gilabrand (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Still unresolved, Gilabrand does not use does not use the talk pages just extremist POV could you explain to her that accuracy in facts is not sensationalising. Could you also explain to her that as the IDF didn't go after any suspects that everything about Mansi is sensationalising. Gilabrand is using nothing but extremist POV. ...She has and is removing all the uncertainty about the 99.9% of the world as to the rape allegation to replace it with Israeli POV only......She appears to want only the Jewish girl to appear as a human being while the actual victims of the raid get short shrift an narry a mention. She put things out of order purposefully to cut the actual victims out and pushes a very tenuous link to the fore. And of course she can't spell retaliation. Her grammar is appalling. As I started the article off in English, English spelling should be used not Americanese...As Gilabrand started the name calling and leaving sarcastic messages on the reverts Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Erh No. I am using the talk pages Gilabrand is not.....Gilabrand goes straight for the revert button...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-09 Simon Hoggart
Hi Phil. User:Flatterworld has been removing a legitimate and on-policy statement from the Simon Hoggart article against consensus on the basis that you ruled in a mediation. He has done this a number of times to several editors:, , ,. He appears to feel that the informal mediation that took place has the authority of an ArbCom ruling as he cites it several times. The discussion that took place on the talkpage shows he is alone in his campaign to censor the article. I have looked back at the mediation page and found that you took the case. I have attempted to engage him in discussion, but his approach is to revert and claim that this has been through mediation so the matter is closed. It may be appropriate at this stage if you had a word with him as he appears to respect your opinion. My last communication with him is here - he has removed it from his talkpage. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Banners Gate Community Church wiki
Please could you explain to me why you went ahead and deleted my page, without giving a reason, or messaging me to speak to me. I have lost a deal of original information that I would have liked to kept for other sources. Not only that, but the discussion on the articles for deletion page had not ended. Musicalphilosophy (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Deletion discussions typically run for about 5 days, and there was a clear consensus to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RFA - it has now closed as a success. Support means a lot to me, and I shall do my best to remain as trustworthy as you consider me to be. Once again, thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Regarding your recent block of the user DrPolich, please note that the paragraph which she is endeavouring to remove does not have consensus support since multiple editors have observed that it is not NPOV in tone and it is a significant obstacle to removing the tag which the article currently has. I suppose that Dr Polich is acting upon the comments which have been made about this on the article's talk page. Her action does not seem any more disruptive than that of the editors who revert to restore this text. Please explain your position since I would like to edit in support of Dr Polich's action to demonstrate that she is not alone in her view. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the top of the article there is the following comment:
 * "This article has been the subject of edit wars, and has been placed on probation. Please discuss major changes on the talk page."
 * In this context, you obviously shouldn't make significant changes without first establishing consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Other editors routinely make edits to this article without establishing consensus. For example, see this recent change in which a complete section was removed without any attempt to establish consensus.  All that editor did was provide a tendentious edit summary - nothing on the talk page.  In the case of Drpolich's edit, this content has been discussed on the talk page and she might well suppose that there is some consensus support for her action.  Anyway, my point is to establish exactly what triggered your action, since I too edit this article and do not wish to be blocked for so doing.  Is it that the edit concerns the lede; that it was made twice; that it was pro-homeopathy; or what?Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, if you don't understand the difference, then I suggest that you establish consensus on the talk page before making any significant changes. For the avoidance of doubt, DrPolich was being disruptive by repeatedly blanking a third of the lead section, which dramatically altered the balance of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, since there are several editors of this article with polarised POVs, it is often difficult to establish what is the more general consensus or NPOV. Myself, I refer to general treatments of the topic elsewhere and, if I edit in line with such sources, consider that this is a reasonable approach.  Since the article is currently bloated with much repetition of the same or similar points, it is appropriate to cut and trim to make our article better.  The existing version of the article cannot be regarded as the baseline since it is generally agreed to be unsatisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you still don't understand. This is nothing whatsoever about whether your view is mainstream or fringe. It is entirely about whether you are being disruptive or not. If you make changes that are clearly intended to significantly alter the balance of the article, without first establishing consensus, then you are going to banned from editing this topic. Could you stop posting on my talk page? It seems whatever question you ask the answer is 'you should establish consensus before making significant changes'. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you need to pay her talk page a visit. I have been grossly attacked by Colonel Warden and an anonymous IP, and the IP has even called for your blocking and/or banning from Wikipedia! These people just don't get it and need a spanking with a cluestick, as well as blocks for personal attacks. Even Polich herself hasn't learned much from her block as she is still making the same demands for removal of well-sourced wordings. I have tried to give her some advice, but will have to wait to see if she's capable of learning our ways here. --  Fyslee  /  talk  22:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Snus portioner
Hi You previously deleted Snus portioner as patent nonsense. It's back, and almost definitely a hoax. I PRODded it, but it might be a G4 speedy - can you check and delete it right away, if so? Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee POV
I would like to complain about Ceedjee POVing up articles with

During the lead into the 1947 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, al-Hawari was suspected of flirting with the Jews.[7] He had indeed met and discussed an agreement for Jaffa with Ezra Danin.[7] "Drawing the self-evident conclusion", he left for Egypt where Amin al-Husayni prevented his return and subsequently gained the control of Jaffa.[7] Nevertheless, in the process "al-Najjada [organisation] was destroyed,"[3] and the Palestinian Arab leadership entered the 1948 Palestine War without a national militia.[3]

on al-Najjada, as is Ceedjee normal mode of operation placing POV. There is now two sentences with the same source one that means nothing more than racism. Two Amin al Hussein did not prevent his return as al-Hawari was in Jaffa in command of the militia. Three demanding acquiescence is normal from ceedjee rather than consensus as is the issuing of threats.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dean Drive Discussion/Talk Page Mediation Tag
In reviewing the various entries generated by the recent activity on the above referenced page, I notice that the tag for request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal has reappeared. I thought it had been removed when you closed the mediation request. What's changed? Or is that supposed to remain there for awhile longer?

I notice that there are also anomalous entries on the 71.35.28.231 talk page displaying material that was originally on your talk page which shouldn't be there:

08:25, 2 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PhilKnight (→Please again consider unblock of WorkerBee74)

21:41, 13 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:PhilKnight (→Ceedjee POV) (top)

To my knowledge, there is no connection between the above entries and activity on the Dean drive discussion page. Are these the result of prior messages posted by me to your talk page? Would you please remove that anomalous entries? (or tell me how to do it) Thanks. 71.35.25.186 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC) [User I]

Just wondered - What becomes of the Mediation Cabal cases once they are closed? I'm also curious about where I can find more information about admistrators and their connection to the Wikipedia organization - along the lines of an "organization chart". In other words, where administrators fit into the Wikipedia organization in general. 71.35.25.186 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC) [User I]

User statistics
is saying 52% wikipedia users come from the United States. But according to Alexa, 27% wikipedia users come from the United States. Which is correct?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus, the Alexa statistic includes Wikipedia in every language, while the graph is just for the English version. PhilKnight (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kington Town F.C.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kington Town F.C.. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I've restored the article - it was deleted under the proposed deletion process, so recreation doesn't necessitate a full review. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Monash deletion
Question: Why did you delete Monash Residential Services when a consensus was emerging for a MERGE? I find the entire Deletionist mindset of WP disturbing and rather pathetic. - Nhprman 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There were 5 editors arguing for delete, and only one arguing for a merge, so I certainly don't see a consensus to merge. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Braude
I'd like to contest this prod. I feel notability can be demonstrated on this subject. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand
Hello PhilKnight, hope you're well. I'd like to draw your attention to Gilabrand's talkpage, where I detail briefly how, aside from nearly (but not quite) provoking a first-ever edit-war out of me (and my first bout of unladylike behavior;) she also deleted facts in a manner constituting vandalism. I am not in the mood to fight for her blocking right now, but let the record show that that lady is a pain to edit with. If she continues I will come back to you to request banning. Thanks much, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Update: (sorry to bother you) she has moved on to become quite insulting, beyond her edit summaries, accusing someone of being brainwashed and brainless, for questioning a source on a talk page.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Hoggart's affair with Kimberley Quinn
You may wish to comment on the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Titan (Warhammer 40,000)
Please userfy this article. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User space copy is here.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Air section additions
Hi there, PhilKnight...Just curious as to why you chose to delete my additions to the Air Transportation section? After much work, I thought the information about the additional public and private airports, etc., in the region was informative and helpful...

Cheers, Pirmin

208.10.62.253 (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pirmin, I gather your edits were reverted by another editor, because you were misidentified as a vandal. PhilKnight (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ) Thanks...I know that I need to REGISTER, which I will do, as well as use the PREVIEW function more to keep the history page cleaner for everyone...I'm still a bit new to all this. Pirmin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.10.62.253 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Protections
Thanks for dropping the protection on those two. I am going to leave the others how you protected them for now. But if you don't mind, I may reduce them in a week or so once things calm down. I have a RFCU pending which will hopefully result in a range block. Please let me know if you have any questions or objections. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi KnightLago, thanks for your involvement in this. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)