User talk:PhilKnight/Archive78

Please Review Ganas page
I request assistance on the summary section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganas. I seem to be in an edit war with Campoftheamericas, and am unable to engage him in stating his case(s) on the talk page. At this point I am mostly concerned with getting agreement on what belongs in the summary, also the validity of some of his references, especially Ganas' own website. Thanks so much. Eroberer (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Eroberer, I've protected the page for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Eroberer (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is brewing
I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the talk page of Gideon Levy. There is a very disgruntled participant in the conversation, who seeks to make a complete rewrite of the lead. The article as it stands was the result of a long and very arduous negotiation, of which the complaining editor was a participant; the end of that negotiation was an agreed version that has held up without challenge for about eight months. The editor has recently disavowed any agreement with the existing version, and wishes to restore the previous version of the lead.

So far he has done nothing untoward (he earlier tried twice to restore the rejected version, but was reverted by other editors), but his latest posts suggest a possible intent to unilaterally make changes in the lead without agreement.

Thanks for your attention. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I just wanted to tell you that you have found a great way to respond to this. It always works for everybody, who knows he's wrong, but would never admit it. :) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Settlement discussion
Phil, it doesn't look like Carol will be able to read through the discussion and come to a conclusion :

What now? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR on Yom Kippur War
here and here. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've left a note on his talk page to give the opportunity to self-revert. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections
Dear PhilKnight, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard Talk 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Phil, just a quick reminder about the instructions above; your nomination statement should include a categorical declaration about any other accounts you have edited with (i.e. either naming them or if there are privacy/security concerns stating that they have been disclosed to the Committee). Cheers,  Skomorokh   14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Skomorokh, thanks for the reminder. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for that Phil.  Skomorokh   17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Japol1
I noticed you blocked User:Japol1 for vandalism. I looked at his contribs and it appears that his edits were constructive, just incorrect according to the manual of style. Based on the talk page reply, I believe he didn't realize he had done anything wrong and was genuinely trying to help. I believe that a indefinite block may have been a little harsh, and perhaps a little bitey. Can you please reassess this? Thank you, -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    22:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Alpha Quadrant, you're saying this isn't vandalism? PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That edit was inappropriate, yes. This one was not thought He even provided a source. -- Alpha Quadrant    talk    00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, was this vandalism? PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Perhaps the account is being shared. Some of the edits are constructive and some are not. Either way the account should be blocked. My mistake, sorry for bothering you. -- Alpha Quadrant   talk    00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom
Glad you're running. MastCell Talk 22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What should be done with this?
User:Stevonmfl incorrectly filled out a mediation cabal case back on 10/4/10. I did respond to it, outlining why I didn't feel it even belonged there and why what Steve said was....well, not true. Anyway, the case, being incorrectly filed has sat in some sort of limbo. The nominator isn't a regular editor and has edited only one article since he tried filing the case. He hasn't followed up on it. I was going to PROD the page, but knowing him, it would be a waste of time because he'd just contest it and start accusing me of something. I then considered making an AfD nom since it's not listed under the MEDCAB cases and, as such, borders on being an attack page. Anyway, any suggestions on what to do with this page? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Niteshift36, I've deleted the page. PhilKnight (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lar, looking at your questions, I think just 9 & 10. To be honest, I think you could've combined these, and included them as a standard question. The others read like exam questions, and remind me of my finals. And not in a good way. :) PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your response. They are not exactly a menu that you pick and choose from. Candidates 2 years ago and last year managed them fine. At least the serious ones, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, don't worry then. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you want them copied over to your questions talk page or no? Perhaps I should have just asked that initially without all the explanation... ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lar, yes, copy all of them. I promise to answer 9 & 10, and if I have time, I may answer the others. PhilKnight (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Carhartt
I noticed you fixed an edit at Carhartt. Actually, that needed to be reverted a bit more.

The story there is amusing. It's a classic case of "unflattering but verifiable" information about a company. Back in the 1990s, the company tried to promote their line of heavy-duty outerwear in the hip-hop community. Their NYC sales rep was actually quoted in the New York Times about their brand's popularity with crack dealers. That's in the article, and is the only ref to a WP:RS reliable source in the article.

The company has since repositioned their brand (the fad for baggy clothing being over) and every few months, tries to take that reference out. The edits definitely come from the company. - check out this reverse IP search:. It's not worth a block. --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi John, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDILIG - List of open source healthcare software - Deleted with no reason.....
Hi, any particular reason behind this action 18:13, 15 November 2010 PhilKnight m (27,829 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Healis (talk) to last version by IsaiahNorton). Thanks for your help.Healis (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Healis, my edit was intended to remove an instance of File:Example.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherif yet again
The AE hasn't even closed yet and he does it again--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The case was closed with no action. Am I missing something here? (and that's not a rhetorical question)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I posed this question to Ed Johnson. I'd like to get your view on this as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The template says 'one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period', so four reverts in a 24 hour period, even if they were in regard to different parts of the article, wouldn't be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ty--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP editing
Sorry I never got back to you, but it seems you're on track towards an attempted solution. Good luck!--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

minor question
Is it appropriate for me to add the arbpia template to an article obviously within the scope of I/P? Note I don't intend to run around doing this on a lot of articles. Thanx--Misarxist 09:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Misarxist, yes, and thanks for adding the template. PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your answer to my question
Thank you for giving a thoughtful answer to my question; it clarifies a lot about your stance. It seems that your primary issue is that the committee itself should sanction the problematic editors rather than "passing the buck", as I think you called it. If I may continue to pick your brains a bit on this idea: In some cases, problem editors have indeed been sanctioned, but discretionary sanctions have also been enacted (Climate Change as one recent example, where a whole slew of sanctions on specific editors were enacted, along with discretionary ones. The reasoning I've heard for this is that the specific sanctions are to address the immediate problem, while discretionary sanctions help admins deal with new problems (including newly arrived POV warriors). What's your opinion on this? Good idea, not so good idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think under those circumstances, where specific editors have been sanctioned, applying discretionary sanctions to deal with future problems is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request: clarification re expanded editing block
Three weeks ago you expanded my editing block to include my own user page. Unfortunately I didn’t get time to query the precise reason for this action as it was taken in the late in evening (GMT), only one and a half hours after notification was served. I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to which rule/s I was infringing so that I can avoid doing so again. Thanks Prunesqualer (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When users are blocked, they're normally allowed to edit their user talk page in order to make an unblock request. In my opinion, in these edits you weren't contesting your block, but using your talk page for other purposes, such as soap boxing. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Could I ask: In your opinion would it be acceptable for me to reinsert these edits now that my edit block is over, since they “present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia”. Prunesqualer (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of these edits, you can reinstate them. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR on Coandă-1910
FYI: I notice you hid Template:Editnotices/Page/Coandă-1910 that I created. I just un-hid it. 1RR is still in force. I recently had to block one of the participants because of it, so I want to give it another week or so. I am monitoring the activity on that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. There are a couple of things I don't understand. Firstly, why in this talk page note you mentioned the Six Day War. Secondly, could you tell me under which discretionary sanctions the article is covered? PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I linked to a diff rather than the actual text - now fixed, thanks. The actual text (now archived) is correct: Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 8. I based it on something WGFinely once wrote on Talk:Six-Day War. Looks like some old words slipped through.
 * As to discretionary sanctions: It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect?) from conversations with WGFinley that an administrator may impose a 1RR restriction on an article coming off full protection if it appears that protection is not working and a revert war will resume among contributors, as it did in this case based on veiled threats by the involved editors. I have also seen this done elsewhere where the people involved in the dispute suggested it. In the case of Coandă-1910, the participants were agreeable to it, their behavior has greatly improved as a result of the 1RR restriction, and they are more cooperative than the warring that was going on prior to the article being full protected. They appear to have settled into a groove where they can be constructive, so I think it's about time to lift the restriction. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman
Is Jehochman a member of the mediation cabal? Does he have the authority to close a mediation request? Note here Thank you.

ps I don't get this. Jehochman starts his judgement, "This is not a content dispute." What has that got to do with it? It reads like a complete non sequitur to me.--LevenBoy (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Mediation Cabal doesn't have members as such, and just about any user in good standing can close a request. In general, the Mediation Cabal deals with content disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please undo your un-close LevenBoy. MedCab isn't for the purpose of defining what's civil.  That's a behavior dispute. Jehochman Talk 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. It is a behavior dispute that I want to address. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

AE on Cptnono
Hi Phil, Cptnono has admitted he was not right. IMO this AE should be closed with no sanctions ASAP because, if an editor admitted he was not right any sanctions at that point will be punitive, which sanctions are not supposed to be. This AE has already became quite a circus. Please do close it before it will get even worse. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mbz1, I've followed Boris's advice, and gave Cptnono a very short block. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother PK. An ARBPIA notice was never issued to Sherif after closure of his AE. I only mention this because one was issued to AndresHerutJaim and the infractions were almost identical. Perhaps it was an oversight. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jiujitsuguy, thanks for letting me know, I'll notify Sherif9282. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ekram Ahmed Lenin
Why you have deleted this page? Please see the book ( http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6670577-L.jpg ). I am trying to contribute his biography and all books in Wikipedia. Please retrieve this page. What you require just ask me, I should give you all proofs.Mrkshahin (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Phil, the user above has lodged an ANB/I complaint about the deletion. Since you closed the AFD, can you please comment on it? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Ragib, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * pls see the address in url and verify it from Bangla Academy either he is false writer or not:

1. Amrao pari 2. Black Daimond 3. Jollad 4. Nanarokom Golpo 5. Shundorbon Ovijan Mrkshahin (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dnkrumah
If Dnkrumah self-reverts, then I don't think any further action would be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that the decision? 12:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnkrumah (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Dnkrumah, it's normal practice not to block or ban if someone goes over a 1RR restriction, but self-reverts. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the term, self-revert, but I will revert the article to the point before I made any edits. I will then wait for my dispute resolution request to be acted on and I assume in 24 hours I can edit the entire article if I please. Is that right? Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article history next to your last edit there is a link marked 'undo'. To self-revert, you click this link, and then press 'save'. However, I think what your suggesting would achieve the same provided there weren't any changes made by other editors that would be lost. Otherwise, you're correct about being free to edit this article in 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil, is this "Undid revision 399043492 by Dnkrumah (talk) Will rewrite entire article in 24 hours" (highlighted by me) what you meant? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Mbz1, he has at least self-reverted. Obviously, I hope his future edits to the article are going to responsible. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your alert eye
I see the section of the request for arbitration enforcement where you recently commented is to be used only by uninvolved administrators, so I cannot respond there. But I wanted to say thanks to you for being alert to fine details of procedural rules, the better to be sure that Wikipedia dispute resolution policies are applied consistently to all of us Wikipedia editors. If you ever have occasion to comment to me about how I am doing as an editor, feel free to do so. I am only just into the second half of my first year as a wikipedian, so I still have a lot to learn, and only recently have I begun to interact with many editors whose account creation dates are more recent than my own. I will be glad to receive advice from you and from other experienced editors on how collaboratively to build an encyclopedia and continually improve the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Editnotices
Hi, please use a single template for batches of identical editnotices, which you then transclude in the editnotices. Otherwise it's extremely impractical to modify them (change of wordings, maintenance adjustments, etc). I've created one for IP 1RR here. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cenarium, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

West Bank legal status
Thank you for your direction to the Wikipedia page on the West Bank. The article quotes one renowned scholar of political science saying

"The West Bank has a unique status in two respects; first, there is no precedent for a belligerent occupation lasting for more than a brief period, and second, that the West Bank was not part of a sovereign country before occupation—thus, in legal terms, there is no "reversioner" for the West Bank. This means that sovereignty of the West Bank is currently suspended, and, according to some, Israel, as the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate, has a status that "goes beyond that of military occupier alone."[65]

(According to the scholar, "according to some" this is a particular case, and thus is not black and white and has never been specifically adjudicated.)

''The current status arises from the facts (see above reference) that Great Britain surrendered its mandate in 1948. Since the area has never in modern times been an independent state, there is no "legitimate" claimant to the area other than the present occupier, which currently happens to be Israel.''

(This line is apparently in Wikipedia's neutral voice, supposedly expressing Israel's opinion yet "legitimate" is in scare quotes and it suggests that Israel considers itself the "present occupier" which is not at all clear. This rather important bit of explanation has no reference but worse yet is below:)

This argument however is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom regard Israel's activities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self-determination found in the Article One of the United Nations Charter, and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

There is no reference for this hyperbolic assertion whatsoever. The argument continues (and that's all it is, an argument, not a fact or a quote) relying on an particular interpretation of UN 242 that not every body accepts. (Reference the scholar above) Finally the paragraph finishes with the naming of people quoted to support the position that that "the argument is not accepted by the international community and international lawmaking bodies, virtually all of whom consider Israel's activities as an occupation that denies the fundamental principle of self determination."

It is a POV to claim that this is an illegal occupation. It may be a POV held by many, but it doesn't make it a fact, since the issue of "occupation" has never been adjudicated by any court Israel has been a party to. But we are not supposed to put our interpretations onto Wikipedia and that is exactly what is being done in this article here. We are supposed to describe what is out there. The two sides' argument should be described. But we should not take sides, and claim "Everybody says so." Words like "all" or "virtually all" are dead-giveaways that something is being pushed. But as the Arab saying goes, "A camel doesn't see its own hump." 172.190.32.76 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction bans
Hi Phil, I'm not sure if you saw my comment regarding interaction bans at AE, but to reiterate I'm opposed to them on principle as I think they are impractical. Shuki and Nableezy both work on the same set of articles, how can they possibly do so if they are prohibited from communicating with one another? I'd support a time-limited interaction ban, of say, three months, to let tempers cool. But I think indef bans of this nature are rarely useful. Gatoclass (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, the options are as follows:
 * do nothing and watch the situation deteriorate further,
 * use interaction bans, which have serious disadvantages as editors working in the same area would normally be communicating,
 * restrict editors from commenting on WP:AE reports that don't directly involve them, which ignores the problem of article talk page hostility,
 * attempt to use civility parole, which experience has shown rarely works,
 * start issuing topic bans for battleground behavior.
 * From my perspective, interaction bans are worth trying, but I agree there are concerns. I think regardless of whether the bans are time limited, we would have to review their effectiveness after a few months anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty upset about your last comment. Would you mind responding?
 * Also, what is your suggestion for the editor who reverted to the line without consensus? I do not think he was attempting to be disruptive or anything but a reminder would be appreciated since he did something that would get many editors in the topic area some heat. Cptnono (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Which comment? PhilKnight (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the diff in a later edit. See .Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I think an interaction ban between you and Nableezy is warranted, as you have a history of negative interactions. PhilKnight (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We sure do but for the most part I have been taking a step back. And I have not made a habit of personal attacks. Any such ban is unnecessary and I should not be burdened due to his disruption. I think it is completely necessary that I do not personally attack him but giving me yet another sanction when I am trying to improve will be counter productive and will limit my ability to edit in the topic area. If we had a topic ban we would not have the edit in place on articles right now. I started that conversation in a response to his edit warring. Besides this AE (both Nableezy and Shuki made mistakes) it is coming along. There is no negative interaction since my last sanction besides saying "going out of your way" and that is not nearly reasoning for an interaction ban.Cptnono (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I welcome criticism on how I can improve but not a sanction. If you are not willing to consider anything else I will appeal and think I have strong reasoning since my comment was not very bad and I just received a sanction based on my interaction with others. That sanction was actually spurred by my thoughts on what I consider Nableezy getting away with disruption so the sanction gave me some stuff to think about (ie: Not OK to react that way).
 * Also, I'm not going to open a separate AE on Cla68 but a more a formal heads up might be useful since he has not responded to nonformal ones. I am not going to assume it was anything but an oversight on his part but it needs to be clear that the edit was a problem which he has failed to acknowledge.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight. I've been reading the WP:AE board. Did not want to add to the noise there, but I wanted to share my thoughts regarding the interaction ban proposal. Like Gatoclass, I think it would be largely unproductive, primarily since tt would inhibit collaboration and (arbitrarily) preclude the editors affected from participating in centralized discussions (like the one that led to the current consensus on how to include information on the world's view regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements and Israel's rejection of that view). Additionally, restricting Nableezy from engaging with three editors, while they would only be prevented from engaging him, means that he would be disproportionately affected. I don't have a solution for the civility issues, but this isn't one either, IMHO. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

user:Dnkrumah
Hi Phil, you refused to topic ban user:Dnkrumah for edit warring on Gaza War even after you were shown a strong evidences of the user's battleground behavior. Well, he did it again. Now he is blocked, and he removed declined unblock request which is against the rules. And how would you like this statement: "Yeah at this point in time you can all go fuck off. Slimy bitches"? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mbz1, I think you'll find that I didn't block him for going over 1RR after he self-reverted. Anyway, I've removed his talk page access, and thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem with WP:Article titles WP:Content forking
I know you are familiar with this area and WP:ARBPIA. As you may have noticed the editors of formerly named Jewish control of the media are adamant about NOT admitting that WP:RS used in the article, as well as google book and web searches, show that "myth" and "conspiracy theory" are used to describe the concept far more that "canard," a word repeated almost every paragraph of the article! So today one of them changed the name to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard). I don't want to go to the wrong place and be accused of forum shopping, and so advice on best noticeboard or whatever to go to to deal with this absurd behavior welcome. Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Carol, I'm not sure which noticeboard, possibly either WP:NPOVN or WP:ECCN. I've asked Dbachmann if he could have a look, as he is very experienced at dealing with these situations, but he may well be too busy. PhilKnight (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Questionable block query, refactored
Hi, Phil. I've refactored my question to the standard format. Apologies, but the reduced word count makes it a bit more brusque than I'd otherwise have had it. As long as I'm here, I wonder if you can say a bit more about being blocked twice by Philwelch while you were using the account for "Matrixism hoaxing." Was that a joke? What did it mean? Thanks again. IronDuke 17:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi IronDuke, it was a dispute at Religion and the Internet about whether the article should mention Matrixism. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)