User talk:PhilKnight/Archive56

Luis Napoles' edits

Can I get some assistance or advice with what happened concerning some of Luis' sources? I posted the reasons why I was removing his edits on the history page for rRcism in Cuba and on his talk page. His sources are not reliable and apparently removing them myself only leads to him getting me banned, so I'd like to know if there is anything that can be done to help set those articles straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zd12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image undelete request

Thank you for taking the time to undelete those images. Here is a little moon to help you see in those dark nights. LA @ 05:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ribbon

Hello PhilKnight... Would you be willing to undelete two images you deleted? They were deleted in my absence, and I had just noticed. I still use them on occasion. The images are File:Wikisun2.JPG and File:Wikimoon.jpg. Hopefully this isn't controversial. I would have objected had I known that they were up for deletion. LA @ 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That works! LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

request for permission

To avoid me starting an edit war. Can you take a look at the discussion between Ronz and me. See the BM article : [1]. Regards, Seeyou (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm honoured; thank you

for the barnstar. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SpongeSebastian sock

SpongeSebastian has started to use an IP sock shortly after his block. Please warn/ban 209.247.23.201. The Cool Kat (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He's got another sock, Special:Contributions/132.170.57.225. The Cool Kat (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

re 212.227.114.140 , again

Thanks for acting on this. I could still use some advice on what I'm best doing, though. And the same guy seems to be editing from 81.50.43.195 (talk) as well, now; any suggestions on what I should about that? Swanny18 (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Swanny18, the problem with blocking IP addresses is the risk of collateral damage. Accordingly, I'm slightly reluctant to block an IP address that hasn't been used in the last few days. If the disruptive editing resumes, then I suggest you either let me know, or post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. PhilKnight (talk)

image question

Hi Phil, I just added an image to commons and was a little worried I didn't do it correctly, would you mind checking if File:Logo International Court of Justice.jpg has the correct information, or point me in the direction of who could tell me? Left a message on the helpdesk there, doesnt seem like that gets too much traffic though. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, sorry for not replying sooner, I think you've done everything correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I was mostly worried about the license usage, but the commons help desk said it was probably fine. Nableezy (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Shell to Sea Mediation

Hiya. Just wondering what the story was with the Shell to Sea mediation - the other user involved has decided to resume editing of the disputed articles due to lack of activity on the mediator's (yourself and Twiznor) parts. Gimme a shout! Thanks! Fin©™ 14:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Falcon9x5, thanks for the prompt. I'll leave a note on the medcab case page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

9x5, it would be more accurate to say I have decided to join you in editing; unlike me, you didn't stop editing the articles concerned even though they suited you more than me because of your aggressive edit-warring. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey again Phil. LP is still aggressively editing articles, even though I asked him to discuss stuff at mediation first. I'm now convinced his edits are purely soapboxing, as evidenced by this reply to a discussion on my talk page (the discussion had _nothing_ to do with Corrib gas etc) and his contributions generally (if you look through them, you'll see the vast majority are being negative about law enforcement/positive about protests/negative about shell/negative about the Irish government). While some of my edits may seem the reverse, that's primarly due to my (perhaps sometimes excessive) undoing of his WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX - I'd gladly welcome someone netural to point out parts where I might be going a bit too far. Anyway, I'm starting to think the Mediation will not be sufficient - with edits like this and this which are clearly WP:POV-pushing and insinuation. I've become pretty exasperated trying to talk to him, and have effectively given up, as he's difficult to impossible to reason with. I was wondering what the next step is (or, if we're to stay with mediation, we effectively need a third party with a lot of spare time to decide what constitutes neutral language, appropriate sources, etc). Much thanks! Fin©™ 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sonic Unleashed Fusion

Hello. I noticed that you deleted Sonic Unleashed Fusion, which I proposed for deletion, under WP:CSD G1. This criterion says:

Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history.

At the time I PRODed it, it was quite coherent, and appeared to be about a sequel to Sonic Unleashed (albeit one which did not exist. Therefore, I feel that the page should be undeleted, and re-deleted once the PROD expires, unless anyone objects, per standard procedure.--Unscented (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Unscented, I disagree, there's nothing wrong with deleting blatant hoaxes. PhilKnight (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but there is something wrong with deleting them under G1, which specifically excludes hoaxes. It's probably okay for it to stay deleted, but for future reference, obvious hoaxes are covered under G3.--Unscented (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What's Wrong?

Could you explain the policy so I don't make the same mistake again (Orton pic)? --WeezleBeezle (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeezleBeezle, images are required to have a copyright tag. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning again

Dear PhilKnight. Things have been much, much quieter and more cheerful over at Scriptural Reasoning of late. I would value your opinion on my latest, quite wide-ranging edit of the article, designed to put to bed remaining worries about referencing, NPOV, and COI. Specifically, I have asked a few simple questions about the new edit at the bottom of the talk page, and would be grateful for any responses, should you have time to pop over. I'm not asking you to mediate in a controversy - simply to provide an opinion on whether we can now remove the flags that mark the article as having problems in these areas. Should only take a few minutes. --mahigton (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reason for External Link Removal of allankirsch.tech.officelive.com?

Reviewing the other external links on the "spelling" page; my external link appears to fit there well as it shares the same characteristics as some of the other links already shown there. allankirsch.tech.officelive.com contains a list of possible spelling errors on the newly redesigned www.whitehouse.gov website. I would think that people would find this information very useful and interesting. It also contains a list for the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). If you can show me anyone else who can produce such lists I would be very interested to know about them.

Sincerely, surfersurfer20022002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfersurfer20022002 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Surfersurfer20022002, have another look at the article history, I didn't revert your edit. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Phil, just to let you know I've sent you an email. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ext. Link Removal of allankirsch.tech.officelive.com on "spelling" page.

The reason for my ext.link was to allow people to see the spelling errors on the newly designed www.whitehouse.gov website. What is the proper way to allow people to see it within Wikipedia.org? That is the freebie rather than a service. Would a direct link to the report be allowable? I can't copy it off that website because it's not mine.

If there is no way for people to be able to find this information on Wikipedia.org then I think it's a real disservice to the public! If you think the report is not real then lookup the misspellings on www.whitehouse.gov to verify, because they are real.

I noticed that Spellr.us is allowed an external link on the "spelling" page and sells it's service?

surfersurfer20022002

Can you guide me so I can learn how to make an acceptable contribution?

Mr. Knight;

I recently added a couple of paragraphs and a video link to the Explanation section of the Dysmenorrhea page. I see that you reversed these edits.

I am new to Wikipedia and am hoping to be able to contribute. I am hoping that you could show me what I did right and what I did wrong with these edits.

Although I added a few sentences, my main intent was to add a link to the video, since we have several informative ones on topics relating to Dysmenorrhea, Endometriosis etc. Is there an appropriate way to do this?

I would appreciate any help you can give.

Thanks,

Steve

Santonellis (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, the text you added explained something which was covered by the previous paragraph. If you want to expand the previous paragraph, that would probably be ok. Regarding the video, I agree with Nn123645's comments on the Help Desk - you should propose adding the video link on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the RfC for "minimum wage"?

We desperately need some outside editors to take a look at this. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks and ...

thanks for assisting with that recently-insistent addition of inappropriate material to Pop music. i was looking around for possibilities for finding someone who might be willing to provide that editor with some coaching, and i note with interest that you work with WP:MEDCAB - can you perhaps take on this "case"? the slow edit war is feeling pretty unconstructive and the editor appears to be ignoring the talk-page discussion, but maybe someone could successfully step in as a "mentor" on his/her talk page to help him/her understand what kind of writing style and content is needed on wikipedia. what do you think? thanks for your help and insights Sssoul (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

update: sorry, now that i'm a bit more caffeinated i see that you and some others have tried to engage with the editor on his/her talk page. i hope that'll lead somewhere constructive, but in case it doesn't, maybe mediation would be good. thanks again for taking an interest Sssoul (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Muhammad to Edward III

Hi Phil, Not really good with computers am an old Grandma trying to put together Family Tree before my time comes up. Have just noticed this page was deleted in 2008. Please what was the reason? Have pages of printed and written notes, not matter how hard I try I cannot make the connection between Eleanor of Castile 1244-1290. Probably staring me in the face. Will the deleted page be brought back to life? Thankyou and regards Marilyn Bacon210.49.182.10 (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it was deleted following this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Phil, your answer most informative. I do understand the lack of firm proof. I will press on trying to find that one missing generation to connect my tree. I know Zaida is the connection, but not sure how it connects with Eleanor of Castile. I really enjoy the Wiki pages. Cheers Marilyn Bacon210.49.182.10 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Arborsculpture

Hi, things have seem to have settled down. Thanks Blackash (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Magazine rationale

Template:Magazine rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Symbol+rationale

I have nominated Template:Symbol+rationale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --GedUK  16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WMF-office-Sue

Ha - noting your block edit summary, I was about to do the same thing and indef the obvious impersonator, but you saved me having to make the possibly embarrassing move myself :) Mfield (Oi!) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted her a courtesy heads up on Meta[2]. Mfield (Oi!) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Optimal Challenge

Dear Phil! Thank you for your feedback! I am not very happy that you would consider my article as blatant advertising, Optimal Challenge is a new term coined and the German equivalent is in the German wikipedia! Dr. Herbert Laszlo wrote books about the subject and constantly gives talk and is invited to expert rounds...

I read the instructions and thought that this would be a good addition to wikipedia! How can I ad picture or could you please, I have them right here.

Thank you for all your help and hope that we can make this happen! Sonia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.155.43 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've restored the article, and opened a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Restore Personal Freedom Outreach

I propose that the Personal Freedom Organisation page, which was deleted August 6, 2008, be restored. The organization has received attention twice in a national magazine, Christianity Today: Watchers Adopt Guidelines and Word-Faith Movement Out on a Limb. The praise of Budd Press of Christian Research (which has itself received attention by WorldNet Daily) may also be considered.

PFO's memberhip in Evangelical Ministries to New Religions and its adoption of a manual with guidelines in theology and ethical conduct in the countercult network should, in my opinion, be mentioned in the article, since it gives credibility to the organization. --Jonund (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jonund, I've restored the article, and moved it to User:Jonund/Personal Freedom Outreach. After you are satisfied the reasons in the deletion discussion have been addressed, you can move the page back into the article namespace. Hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! I even found a couple of scholarly articles refering to PFO. Thanks for cooperation. --Jonund (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your posting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Teratornis

I think there is a missing "not" in your posting, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to make the change myself; would you take a look? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

could you move a page?

Hi Phil, could you move the Mahmud al-Zahar to Mahmoud al-Zahar. It is the most common spelling for his name and is found in the major sources: Al-Jazeera, Ynet, BBC, Washington Post, and The Times. Let me know if this should go to requested moves, but this seems pretty uncontroversial. Nableezy (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy, I think it's probably best to use the requested moves process. PhilKnight (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

will do thanks Nableezy (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)