User talk:PhilKnight/Archive57

Image:China H-bomb 1967.jpg and Teller–Ulam design
I notice that you nuked the image and removed it off the article... though you did immediately restore the image.

Admin User:Melesse feels that the usage on the Teller-Ulam design and History of the Teller-Ulam design articles isn't proper ("it's just another mushroom cloud") - I disagree, it's notable as the first Chinese H-bomb ever fired. And it's on the article on its own test, which is I presume what you noticed and why you restored it.

I warned Melesse that the warning template she was using was inappropriate for multi-use images and she didn't think the risk was significant 8-P

Anyways - If you strongly feel that the use on the other two articles is wrong, feel free to re-remove it there, but I'd rather it get discussed by more people first. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're saying that in the opinion of 2 admins the image use in Teller–Ulam design‎ isn't compliant with policy, but you reverted anyway? PhilKnight (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I assumed you'd just auto-zapped on the template, as you deleted the image despite the templates being there and the unchallenged third article use. Was that all intentional?  If so I apologize for reverting first and talking second.  Are you strongly of the opinion it's not policy compliant on either the Teller-Ulam or History of... articles?
 * Melesse felt so, but I asked her to discuss in more detail on the image talk and article pages and she declined.
 * So it was 1:1 on admin opinions whether to leave them there or not, without requested followup discussion having occurred. If you looked at the details and agree with her that's fine, but I'm dissapointed that there hasn't been real discussion to justify the opinion to remove.  The image is historically relevant and important.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I've opened a discussion at Non-free content review. PhilKnight (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

infowar monitor
The entry has been been rewritten to fit within wiki standards... I think. the lack of notability was a function  of the original text being lifted from a description of the project rather than as a more objective account. a quick search of Google News yields quite a few citations and one major report that is noted  in the field of information security. I'd consider un-marking this article for deletion Boris Kn (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Boris, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I noticed that you have made a nomination for deletion on grounds of "replaceable fair use", and wanted to say that that you can put di-replaceable fair use on those pages instead of using WP:FFD, as using that template puts it in "pseudo-speedy" deletion. Nan oha A's Yu ri Talk, My master 05:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi NanohaA'sYuri, the image was tagged as di-replaceable fair use, however I thought it was worthy of a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
Regards Phill the Coordinator I've made some moves today, but now I wonder if my call has any chance to be 'adopted', perhaps I should skip this stage and go straight to mediation and beyond? I'm not sure about these first stages, wouldn't want to waste time, I'll appreciate your suggestion/advice. Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:99.254.140.150
Shouldn't anon users be temporarily banned rather than indefinite? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

File:AsCoordClasp.png
Just a heads up, File:AsCoordClasp.png contains the license info in the upload log (user created, released as public domain), someone just needs/needed to add a template I guess... Doesn't affect me but I thought I'd mention it in case someone wants to fix it. Tothwolf (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tothwolf, I've tried to restore, however the file is corrupted. I guess under the circumstances, the original uploader - Grafikm fr should re-upload the image, and include the necessary licensing information. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch, wonder what caused it to become corrupt? Looked ok the other day... I guess you see what I mean about the license thing though. Doesn't look like Grafikm fr is active anymore, no activity since Nov 2007. All the image bots and template changes have over time made image stuff a real mess/minefield. Tothwolf (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Shell to Sea mediation
Hi. I've been talking with Lapsed Pacifist and Falcon9x5 on how to proceed with the mediation. They seem both still very interested in continuing the mediation. I'm still not able to effectively mediate it, what's your situation? Should we ask for more mediators, so the case could move forward more swiftly, or perhaps consider handing the case to WP:MC? — Twinzor Say hi! 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied by email. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I'll suggest handing over the case, as I agree that's probably the best solution. — Twinzor Say hi! 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

notable persons from Badaun deleted by by user 122.163.35.235
Hello,

My family was from Badaun & they immigrated in 1947 to Pakistan, during the partition of India. To-date, there are still some members of my clan living in Badaun & vicinities.

I made an entries of notable persons, from Badaun, who in Pakistan did/are doing rather well. This was deleted by user 122.163.35.235 on Revision as of 12:14, 27 March 2009. This user has not responded why he did not do so.

The only thing that I can think of is that it may be embaressing to see so many highly placed people from Badaun in the Pakistan Armed Forces, while their relatives in India could not progress to those levels.

My entries are shown below:


 * Maulvi Mohammed Sulaiman, ex-mayor of Budaun, Congress candidate (Mirdha Tola)
 * Shaikh Mohammed Jamiluddin, Lt Royal British Army, WWI veteran, Minister with Raja of Bharatpur (Mirdha Tola)
 * Commodore Khalid Jamil retd. Pakistan Navy, ComKar, acting C-in-C Pak Navy, MNA (Mirdha Tola)
 * Begum Sultana Zuberi (nee Jamil), grand matriarch, Business Recorder Group, Pakistan (Mirdha Tola)
 * Brigadier Hamid Jamil, retd, Pakistan Army (Mirdha Tola)
 * Brigadier Hamid Jamil, retd, Pakistan Army (Mirdha Tola)
 * Captain Khalid Lodhi (late) Pakistan Army
 * Captain Khalid Lodhi Pakistan Army
 * Squadron Leader Qasim Rashid, Pakistan Air Force (Qazi Tola)
 * Professor Mahfooz Jalisi ENT Specialist director of major hospitals: Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Center, JJ Hospital; founder of medical university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.28.174.24 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Z security
Could you please reconsider the speedy deletion of this article? I tried to contest the deletion by removing the tag and added one source but it was deleted quickly as nonsense. I think this can be made into a stub. Thanks for your time. —SV 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NVM I'll just redirect this to Security categories in India. —SV 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Nederlandbaseball.PNG
I created that image. I may have incorrectly licensed it, but I assure you, I created it. Rather than deleting the image, I'd like to know how I correct the licensing.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've restored the image, and included a Non-free use rationale. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ireland
OK, I have posted my 'analysis' on the panel page. I hope we can work from that. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Edokter, thanks for posting the summary. I'll update the totals over the weekend. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Willow Palisade

 * Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation on Sindhi people
Hi Phil,

I had made a request for mediation at the MedCab. In response you protected the disputed page about a month ago, and there has been no activity since. I was hoping you had looked into the issue in detail by now.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Gamesmaster, thanks for the prompt, I'll post a note on the article talk page about mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's odd
I just read your reply. That's odd. I could've sworn I put some kind of tag on that picture when I uploaded it. If that was the problem, why couldn't you have added a copyright instead of deleting it (not that it matters now that Orton's a Bronco)? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi WeezleBeezle, non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I understand. --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request
Can you move Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel to WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel. There's nowhere with the current locations for non-mediators to contribute, except perhaps Wikipedia talk talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Panel, which would be odd. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Deacon of Pndapetzim, I suggest you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh ... that's a bit general. Even ArbCom proposed decision pages have talk pages ... doesn't make sense not to have them. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Editing advice
Since nothing was found problematic with my editing, perhaps Carol Moore should be "encouraged" (her words), to cease threatening other editors with punishment if they do not conform to her desired ideals for the article. Something she has done consistently including today. She also has been "teaming up" with other editors who agree with her on her talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help with editing dispute
I am having a dispute about some edits I made on an article with another editor. Everytime I make an edit the other editor reverts it. I have tried to discuss with them the changes but they do not take what I have to say into account and always keep it the way they had the article before. I feel my changes are valid and should be considered but are not. They have even gone as far as to change (take out) some lines in a connecting article to further their reason for having it their certain way. I feel I am being unfairly warned by this person about the changes I made. Can you help?

The article in question is the article for "Best&USA" a best of compilation by BoA and also the article for BoA's single "Vivid". They have "Vivid" listed as a single from the best of album solely because one of the songs from the single appears on the album. But it was not released in support of the album. They think it should stay because it appears on the album. I think it should not. I also think that if they keep it there because it appears on the album than they should list every single from the album because it being a best of means that all the songs on the album are singles and they should be listed as so as well.

I hope to hear from you soon and I hope that my point makes sense and it atleast has some validity to it. I want to compromise with them but they do not want to. I need help. Thanks. Danielquasar (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When you first made the edit through an IP address I reverted your edit and at that moment before changing it again you should have replied to the message I had left on the talk page. Read WP:BRD. The edit I made on Vivid: Kissing You, Sparkling, Joyful Smile was a good edit. On Wikipedia information needs to be sourced and that had no source, so it was removed. You haven't tried to COMPROMISE with me at all. You just keep saying it was released to support the tour. That's not even an attempt at a compromise.

Anyway PhilKnight, before Danielquasar wrote this message I had already asked for advice from User:JD554 about this and he told me to seek advice from WP:SONGS, which I did. If Danielquasar wants to add his two cents there he can. I see no wrongdoing on my part. 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Tylers
Hi - thanks for the block. I'd already filed Sockpuppet investigations/Beingbackthetylers - do you think you could close it (I don't know how!) or just delete it? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TreasuryTag, the sockpuppetry report can be closed by adding SPIclose. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - cheers. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Images for Conformer Expansion Products
Can you please explain why 2 of the images on the page was deleted. These files are Conformeradvantage.jpg and Recycled Conformer.jpg.

I have permission to use these images. How can I provide that proof?

JKChang82 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi JKChang82, unfortunately even if you have permission, the images aren't compliant with the non-free policy, because they are replaceable with free alternatives. In other words, it would be possible to create similar images which communicate the same information, that could released under a free license. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Westerncultures map.png
Thank you for deleting File:Westerncultures map.png per discussion. Since there's a copy of this file on Commons, how do we delete the file from Commons as well? I had troubles deleting a similiar image at Commons: the admin said POV and no source is not really a problem at Commons. Netrat (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo refusal to discuss BLP problem issues
I don't have a problem with your resolution of my WP:ARBPIA complaint on Drsmoo if someone will keep pointing out to him that (as you wrote) engaging in a calm, reasonable and courteous discussion in an effort to resolve the disagreement in a dignified fashion, with a constructive and collaborative outlook is important.

He refuses to deal with BLP problem issues on the talk page. If he responds, it's usually giving short, flippant non-responsive answers to long descriptions by me and others of why he is violating policies. Most recently about why he keeps reverting changes I make to stop policy violations like misuse of primary sources and self-published claims (attacks) on others (which is also now at WP:BLPN). I just wrote these two sections trying to get his attention on previously made points and asking him to please discuss these issues and offering compromise, but am not confidant of a response. Since you've opined I'm asking you to take a look. Or I guess I can go to Admin assistance. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Carol, the article is not violating policies, as you well know, and every moderator has agreed that it's not violating policies, as you well know well. Drsmoo (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Drsmoo, you seem to have misunderstood Carol; she said that you, not the article were violating policies. I'll post on your talk page to clarify. PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I have violated any policies whatsoever. Drsmoo (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As detailed in this talk page section Talk:Gilad_Atzmon and Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard DrSmoo continues to push his extremely anti-Atzmon POV ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) also listed and quoted in this section.

Drsmoo continues to abuse BLP policies by using a primary source totally out of context to make Atzmon look bad. Only after ignoring my question as to whether putting it IN context wouldn't be vs. BLP, he immediately deleted the edit when I did so as being vs BLP. Very frustrating.

A lot of people are fed up with dealing with conflicts in the Atzmon article, as you might imagine, so generally not getting a response on this policy issue. Will try WP:NPOVN next. Meanwhile, I have to just keep deleting his version as being vs. BLP.CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Carolmooredc, I think Wikidemon's last edit was constructive, and demonstrated that a compromise on some aspects of the wording should be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I was so annoyed by the Cohen edit I did forget to make a couple changes per legitimate complaints in that one and those made by Wikidemon are fine with me. It's the Cohen issue that is the big one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it was a problem to quote you in this section here. Talk:Gilad_Atzmon Regarding DrSmoo constantly reverting back controversial material while I am still trying to get a good consensus from neutral 3rd parties on using a quote from a primary source out of context to make the subject of article look bad (can't use context since it's part of article whose purpose to criticize specific third parties).  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

For the record, the edit Carol moore is referring to was done to the specifications of a user who she appealed to in order to resolve the conflict. His suggestion was [] "Trying to explain it, with reference to his own piece, is a form of original research. We're supposed to simply report on what the sources say, not conduct an analysis of them...Oh, and regarding the BLP vio against Nick Cohen, that's unavoidable because it's in the title. One partial solution, which might be a bit awkward, is to avoid repeating that title in the body of the article. If it must be repeated inline as an attribution you could say something like "In an opinion piece written in 2009,[cite] Atzmon..." But to repeat the above point, and after reading both Cohen's and Atzmon's editorials, those can't really be used at all without a third party trying to explain them. Trying to sift through opposing partisans' incendiary essays to figure out which way the flames are flying really does seem like original research." To that end I simply reinserted the quote, now Carol is appealing to a different user, despite their already being a consensus on the article page, and agreement from the user she asked. In addition, she has flamed me throughout the talk page, including being blatantly misleading, by including your early edit in your message to me, which was immediately modified by you. Not only did she include that original unedited message in multiple sections, she included EVERY edit you made as being a different message in order to mislead others. It's rather silly, I would rather get on with keeping the article free from POV, which it was formerly(the consensus agreed [] I will revert to the edit supported by the third party that was appealed to. Drsmoo (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In a sensitive WP:BLP situation, you can't take one fairly ambivalent comment as law. (And Atzmon has been brought to noticeboards so many times, the topic is so controversial, the charges of antisemitism have been thrown around so much, most people understandably decline comment, including on the talk page. That's one reason WP:ARBPIA happened.) In fact I think this needs policy clarification in the BLP article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is your POV regarding any particular "charge" being "thrown around" too much. There is a consensus on the page, you asked for an outside opinion and now you say that it doesn't matter because you personally feel that it was "ambivalent." Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Katarzyna Dolinska
An editor has nominated Katarzyna Dolinska, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. ... Misty Willows   talk  18:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain this is a sock of, but unfortunately, that's a sock of a sock... Half Shadow  22:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi HalfShadow, based on their edit summaries, I agree they are almost certainly the same vandal. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that much help, though; I've seen this sort of edit pattern at least four times, so I couldn't say who the original is, only that it's another sock. Half  Shadow  22:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * Hi CarpetCrawler, thanks for the barnstar. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Floberg_Villmark.jpg
Hi! You deleted this image under F7, "Invalid fair-use claim". I do not understand this. The image was a still from a film that illustrated a role the subject played, and not the subject itself, and as such, could not be replaced by freely licensed media, and I believe the FUR sufficiently explained this. From my experience, this type of fair use is extremely common in actor BLP's. I don't see why this would be any different from e.g File:Chopper-Bana.jpg, File:KaDee Strickland in Train Ride.jpg, File:Loveserenade-MirandaOtto.jpg, File:Piratessiliconvalley.jpg, or File:KHNHLS.jpg (all from featured articles).

A more detailed rationale for the deletion would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi decltype, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it. Thanks. decltype (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)