User talk:PhilKnight/Archive46

Talk:Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity
If you can spare the time, I'd be grateful if you could review and correct (if necessary) my choices for removing the posts to the talk page that are counterproductive to editing the article. Also, talk page trolling by User:Roadahead and User:Princhest persists.Goingoveredge (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image - Invalid justification ?
You have deleted this:

14:59 . . PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Heinrich Himmler and Gudrun Burwitz.jpg" (I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image)

Invalid ? Could you be more specific? I spent quite some time justifying the use of this historical image, on two pages, unique point in time, unique setting, unique meaning, etc - what was wrong, or what is missing ? Power.corrupts (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wakefield, Bronx
I think that a 1-week block for violating WP:3R is probably more appropriate for a first-time offense than a permablock, unless they are a sock of a user that should know better. My opinion only. Bwrs (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Bwrs, I blocked indef because this appeared to be vandalism. However, since you consider that we can sensibly assume good faith, I've reduced the block to 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been looking into this situation and I think User:Audreymart has a point, though she(?) doesn't know enough about Wikipedia to go about making it in the right way. The "social problems" section in that article is pretty inaccurate.  Do you mind if I unblock?  Thanks. Chick Bowen 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice please?
Hi PhilKnight. I'm coming to you since I've noticed your activity as part of the Mediation Cabal and I hope you can steer me in the right direction.

For the last couple of months, there's been a series of disputes centred on the Battle of Britain and related articles. It's spread to Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Supermarine Spitfire, Messerschmitt Bf 109 and others. Probably the most active disputes currently are on Supermarine Spitfire operational history. I haven't been involved in editing any of these pages, but since I'm very active in WikiProject Aircraft, I've been called on by the various disputing parties at various times when they've felt that admin action is needed.

As time has gone on, the disputes have become increasingly intricate and detailed and the quality of the actual articles has taken a real nosedive as the disputing parties stuff ever-increasingly minute levels of detail into them in order to support their views. Outright personal attacks have flared up from time to time, and contributors on both sides have been blocked on account of this.

I personally believe that one of the parties is actively pushing a POV, but would have trouble substantiating that opinion with specific diffs. Part of the problem is that the edit histories of the articles are now extremely convoluted; and unfortunately, none of the disputing parties are given to expressing their differences concisely, so the talk pages are a real morass as well, and it's very difficult to work out who's accusing whom of what (specifically). I'm extremely wary about how both sides are using their sources - I feel that there's a good deal of interpretation, generalisation, and Synthesis going on; and both sides have resorted to their interpretations of primary sources at various points.

The side that, in my opinion, is advancing a specific POV and "righting a great wrong" now appears to have exhausted the patience of the opposing side.

What would you recommend as a course of action? Any advice would be much appreciated! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - no problem at all :) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the Barnstar. :)  Corvus cornix  talk  00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese copy method deletion
So... you deleted an entire article because of a redirect?? I'm confused... on this page:, which is an archived version of your deleted page, the article clearly exists, so it wouldn't have been redirecting anywhere... just what the heck was going on? 70.247.171.184 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, the short answer is the article was deleted following a discussion. The longer answer to what happened can be seen from the page's log - the page was moved to 'Original object template method', which was then deleted as a result of the discussion. My role was merely to delete the redirect to 'Original object template method'. PhilKnight (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NovaMind page and associated references
An editor has asked for a deletion review of NovaMind. 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. Novamind (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the NovaMind page was deleted and it appears that other references to NovaMind have been removed from Wikipedia, and from the comment it appears that the reason was basically that "it's not big enough".

NovaMind is actually the biggest player in the Mind Mapping market on Mac, and currently about 6th on Windows and growing rapidly. The software is in active development, and we have just introduced NovaMind Connect social Mind Map sharing.

It has been the topic of many articles and reviews worldwide from many of the most highly respected sites and magazines in the industry - for instance InnovationTools which seems to be highly regarded on WikiPedia.

I therefore ask that the deletions be reversed and the NovaMind page restored so that I can update it with the latest information.

Thanks.

Gideon King, CEO, NovaMind Software

Vandalism on National Federation of Republican Assemblies Article
It seems they're up to the same stuff again on the NFRA article. CorpITGuy (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... looks like he got around the block with a SPA IP.   I have requested semi-protection.  Semi-protection received.  Thanks. CorpITGuy (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request that you follow Wikipedia rules on NFRA entry
I would be most grateful if you would take a different tack with the Arkansas Federation of Republican Assemblies article. Particularly, I would appreciate it if you could point out the way in which the prior version of the article violated any Wikipedia rule; I have read the BLP and do not think it is applicable. I would also be grateful if you could report any BLP violations at the BLP noticeboard and record any enforcement actions on the enforcement log, which I believe is standard Wikipedia policy. The current de facto policy of letting CorpITGuy vandalize other users' home pages while he gets his associates to block users who disagree with him seems very unfair. CorpITGuy is correct that the NFRA entry has a long history of vandalism; he for some reason doesn't say that much of it is his. The best policy would be unlocking the article so that we could work it out via consensus, an action which CorpITGuy has a long history of resisting by means of tag team edit wars. I have read the consensus rules on Wikipedia carefully, and I think you misapply them when you choose favorites. Instead, please use the standard Wikipedia definition of consensus and let various users work out any differences of opinion. I feel that I have bent over backward to try to understand and apply Wikipedia rules and would appreciate fair treatment. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorAccuracy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to the above, Phil, please contact me to discuss - this could get complex, I think, and I want your opinion on my semi-protect of the article. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your semi-protection was fine. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, let me know if you have any other comments; if it's not something you object to I'll deal with this from hereon. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

EA: Talk:Abhidhamma Pitaka
Perhaps you'd be so good as to go through this (it's not long) & advise me how to proceed. I might add that this is not untypical. Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:EdwardLeeFrampton
Hi, I see you reverted this user's removal of an AfD template. This goes a lot deeper: the user appears to have two sockpuppets,

and also appears to have vandalized (and its talk page) and  using a wide range of IP addresses (open proxies?):



Hopefully somebody can look into this! QaBobAllah (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Usernamejdjdjdjdjjddjjdsfer03 d
Dear PhilKnight, thanks for blocking User:Usernamejdjdjdjdjjddjjdsfer03 d indef from editing Wikipedia. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rob Wells
Hi Phil, earlier this month you deleted Rob Wells and protected it against recreation. A new WP:AFC article has been contributed for this topic at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Rob Wells. Could you please consider deprotecting so that this can be moved in? Let me know if there is any residual issues! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Graeme, I've unprotected the article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People ganging up to disrupt an article
Hi,

I found you at Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by  Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. ­ Kris (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please protect talk pages of recently blocked IPs
User talk:206.53.144.23 and User talk:74.204.28.146 (just recently blocked by you) keep being blanked by the user; please semiprotect these pages to preserve the warnings. Thanks! Todd Vierling (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and you have. You're my hero (well, for the night, anyway).  &lt;g&gt;  Todd Vierling (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * glad to be of assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage IP vandal returning within seconds
You just blocked User:75.168.218.128 for his disruptive edits on the Marriage article, he came back within six minutes as another IP User:75.168.202.166 and started making the same edit. I'd like to request semi-protection on the article, as it doesn't seem he's going to stop. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Slakr has already semi'ed the article. Thanks anyway! Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MedCab - Silent Hill
As you're one of the MedCab coord's, (and I can't see hide nor hair of the two "mediators" on the above case), I wanted to let you know that I have asked for closure on the case. Please see the page itself for details. BMW (drive)  18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phil! I was an "unofficial mediator" on that whole mess, and although I'm sad about how it ended (with a user ban) it needed proper closure. BMW  (drive)  11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PAGESINCAT offset
It's getting pretty annoying to always update these offsets.. It seems to occur when there is some text or alerts in the affected categories...Perhaps one of us should submit a bugzilla? and by one of us, I really mean you ;> (as I don't know how to submit bugs properly). – xeno  ( talk ) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Xenocidic, it doesn't seem to be so much of a problem now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. Someone replaced most of the crud that was on the category pages with a boilerplate message, which seems to have brought most of the cats back to their actual correct numbers. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabriela
Hello Phil, your help please. The article GABRIELA was shifted into a new article.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GABRIELA_Women%27s_Party without any proper discussion or notification of what the Editor was doing. The shift has already been opposed by another editor. The shift is also wrong, as Gabriela womens party is only a sub-section of Gabriela so the move is unencyclopedic. A tag has already been placed by another user for the shift to be reverted and I support this and was hoping you may be able to reverse this shift? kind regardsSusanbryce (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Susan, requested move discussions are usually closed after 5 days. PhilKnight (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEN ARE FANTASTIC
The guy who created this ... his userpage is (I think) nothing but vandalism. Could you give your opinion. Thx. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Blog usage
Phil, we're having a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you are well versed in the WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your block reduction of Eleland
Phil, I don't think we've interacted before, and I apologize for making our first contact less than 100% positive, but I think your block reduction of an editor who was using extraordinarily foul language and Jew-baiting other editors was not a good decision on the face of it, and also contrary to consensus on AN/I -- including the original blocking admin who bitterly opposed it. I won't ask you to restore the block, but I would ask that you go to Eleland's talk page and require that he 1) Say precisely what he did that was wrong (obscenity, Jew-baiting) and 2) Promise never to do it again. If that's not done, it's basically an invitation for him to repeat his mistake. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 16:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You just shut down an active discussion with a disrespectful edit summary. As you seem to have a good deal of free time, can you address my point above? IronDuke  19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with fayssal's comments here. PhilKnight (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mostly do as well. How is that relevant? IronDuke  19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I was going to post on Eleland's talk page, or send him an email, giving my thoughts and advice on the current situation, then I would say something along the lines of what fayssal has said. PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. That won't come close to solving the problem, of course, but I appreciate your response. IronDuke  20:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Casey Jones.
Hi Philknight. Casey is a very well known figure in the west midlands invention community, regularly being asked to speak at functions. Dragons den is what he is most recognised for but he has appeared on local and national TV and local and national media many times. He is in the press right now with the ultrasonic wine ager. Thanks for your time philknight. Ginor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hello Phil. I'm leaving this message regarding my request for mediation in a dispute with a User on the article Gnosis. The User - in what seems to be a fanatical rage - has started vandalising the page and removing important content. Please could you explain how the arbitration process works. Thanks Langdell (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Langdell. Informal mediation involves discussion leading towards a compromise in regard to the disputed content. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your name is in the box with the word mediator next to it. Mediation, as I understand it, is when a third party acts as a sort of go-between between people who cannot resolve things on their own. If you are offering your services that is very kind but I would like to know how to proceed. Thankyou for your time. Langdell (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the discussion leading to a compromise is mediated, and that can include acting as a go-between. Yes, also, I have accepted this case, however, I'm still reading through the article history. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!
I've been playing tag with that Lyle123 sock for an hour now. He threatened further abuse of the site, so you might wish to lock down the talk page. A checkuser and range block might be in order as well. All of his anons come out of Australia if that helps. Back to lurking in the background once more. Have a great weekend, Phil. --76.79.100.242 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you kindly from me as well for the barnstar, no matter what the circumstances of such a gift. :-) RFerreira (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)