Hello, PhilKnight. The image you've deleted has been re-uploaded by the same user again. Could you please take care of it?--OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please10:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PhilKnight - I am the guy who appears to be having a problem with the addition of "== Fiber Optic Network ==" to the Poti, Georgia page. I am merely adding some recent information that I deem informative and is not irrelevant. Below is the copy of the addition to the page along with a picture that holds the caption "Port of Poti, Georgia taken 2 weeks before it was destroyed by Russian fighter jets 8/8/08", which is absolutely true. I am new to Wikipedia and I do not understand why there appears to be a problem anymore. I have copy written the pic and rewrote the addition below. PLEASE, explain to me what I must to keep this information before you or someone deletes it again. All I want to do is cooperate fully in this matter and your help or advise would be greatly appreciated:
A long haul submarine cable system (aptly named CAUCASUS) from Varna Bulgaria across the Black Sea to Poti Georgia was laid during the month of July 2008 onboard the American cable ship CS Tyco Decicive, just a couple of weeks prior to the Russian/Georgian conflict of the breakaway region of South Ossetia. This cable system will be Georgia's first privately owned fiber optic system for the citizens of Georgia. Instead of paying high prices for internet/TV/phone usage through Turkey, Georgians will now be able to pay much less for their own private high speed fiber optic cable internet cable system. Nc tech3 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)nc_tech3[reply]
Hi Nc tech3, the article was deleted in accordance with the Speedy Delete policy on the grounds it was empty - article must include text, not just images with captions. Regarding the content you want to add to the Poti, Georgia article, this should include a reference - have a look at the Verifiability policy. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again...I also included a reference article website that verifies the cable's existence. I also added another pic (copyrighted) of the actual cable deployment to the Port of Poti.
(I worked on the project and took both pics!) IS this going to be acceptable now? Thanks again...and sorry for all the trouble!
No prob. Had it on my watch list and I thought "hmmm....that's not right". Just ask keeper76 how he felt after deleting WP:LGBT on about the first day on the job! Protonk (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video game controversy
Hi, I noticed that you recently did some damge control on this article. Considering how often it gets vandalized do you think it would be a good candidate for semi-protection? S. Luke 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
you speedy deleted a page I was working on called Joint Capability Areas and cited 'blatant copyright infringement' While I will be the first to admit that the article was NOT in good shape structurally (i.e. poorly formated, etc, etc) I'm curious about the copyright justification for deletion. These definitions are established by the Department of Defense and as such are in the public sphere.
FTR, I'm fairly new to this and I'm still trying to figure the whole thing out. I'm going to re-create the page and improve the formating, but I would appreciate a little breathing room (or even better, some assistance) to get it set up right.
Phil, thanks for the help. Like I said, I know that the formatting was a big issue (I think it looks better now). I will use the sandbox and the other tools in the future. I misspoke earlier, I should have said public domain (vice public sphere) since all work on the JCAs is done by the US Government. This is from the public domain wiki page you linked to...
Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.[4] They may also be in the public domain in other countries as well.
You deleted the image I uploaded for Sonny brogan saying that I used an invalid justification for fair usage.
Can you clarify? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia.
I scanned this image from a photograph given to me many, many years ago - I have not seen the photograph anywhere since, it's not on the internet anywhere, and it's not in any publication I know.
There are no published pictures of Sonny Brogan anywhere, and this is quite a rarity. It would seem to make sense to me that I could use this photograph. Please explain to me why I cannot.
Hi PhilKnight. Can you give me some guidelines? The link you provided just said that I need to have a "detailed fair use rationale". I've absolutely no idea what to write. Can you at least give me some guidelines or pointers, given my description to you above of the source of this picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianMcGeeWiki (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying earlier. The rationale should include a clear statement of who owns the intellectual property, and why it isn't possible to obtain a free alternative. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier today I'd created a page for Technical Metal without checking if it had existed previously. Turns out it had, and it had been deleted. I had a look into the discussion for the deletion, and I disagree strongly with what has been said in there. I wonder what sort of source I need to have this article permanently created? My list of arguments for why the genre actually exists is as follows:
among the fans of progressive metal, it is a very clearly understood term, denoting a specific group of bands. If you tell someone who is also knowledgeable in progressive metal that you like technical metal, they would assume that you like Spiral Architect, for instance, but they would not assume that the term includes most other progressive metal bands.
there are bands that cannot be put into any other genre. Here's a short list off the top of my head of bands that can be classified as Technical Metal and as nothing else:
Wikipedia agrees that there is such a thing as Technical Death Metal. Technical Metal is very similar to that genre, only that the brutality of Death Metal is absent. Technical Death Metal, as a name, was formed out of Technical Metal and Death Metal.
A number of factors make it difficult to understand that this genre exists for people from outside of the confines of Progressive Metal fandom.
It is a very, very small genre. It is by far the most demanding genre for a musician to play in, and many of the performers are actually having medical complications from the strain the genre puts on them (Ron Jarzombek and Troy Tipton are two examples of Technical Metal instrumentalists who had to undergo repeated surgeries to their arms/hands).
It is an extreme version of progressive metal, and very often when you go to an extreme along one potential axis (technicality), there is a temptation to go to an extreme along another axis (brutality). Hence there are many more technical death metal bands than technical metal bands.
It is not entirely inaccurate to call, for instance, Spiral Architect a progressive metal band. I would compare it to calling Dream Theater a Heavy Metal band. Surely they are that, but if you call DT heavy metal instead of progressive metal you leave out a good chunk of information that tells the audience not to expect something like Manowar or Iron Maiden. Thus with calling Spiral Architect Progressive Metal. It is not inaccurate, but it fails to differentiate them from very different bands such as Symphony X or Shadow Gallery, and the difference between those and Spiral Architect is at least as big as the difference between Manowar and Dream Theater.
This niche being as small as it is, you will not find many commercial publications dedicated to it. I am not aware of any print magazine devoted to Progressive Metal, for instance. Thus it will be hard to find any sources dedicated to Technical Metal. That the genre is very small should not get in the way of a Wikipedia article; after all, a WP article exists for Government simulation game under video game genres, and there seem to be fewer government simulation games than technical metal bands.
I am a little worried I'm making my argument in the wrong place. What do I need to do to get the Technical Metal article reinstated permanently? Who do I need to convince? What sort of sources do I need?
PS: In the interest of full disclosure: the reason why I've come to this article is that I requested the Zero Hour article be undeleted. In making the case for why Zero Hour are a relevant band, I came across the red link to technical metal and decided to write that article. That Zero Hour are one of the foremost technical metal bands today is only half my argument for why THAT article should be restored; they are also on a label with a lot of other notable bands, thus fulfilling two points of WP:MUSIC.
He is going unabated on wikipedia, continually scuffling civil discussion on article-talkpage by deleting them. His activities are getting encouragement as this RFC on him is not getting any Admin notice. Regards,--Roadahead (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding your warning to me. I'm pretty sure 3rr doesn't apply when the trolls in question consistently link to websites promoting hatred, bigotry and prejudice against a particular ethnic group, since that qualifies as vandalism (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources) and severely compromises the credibility of the encyclopedia. What do you think?Goingoveredge (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is what is added by user:Goingoveredge to the article and is problematic:
"Another reviewer, an Indian Christian named Xavier William accused the author of mud slinging and compared it to another defamatory anti-Gandhi piece written by Khushwant Singh. William provides perspectives from his own life that belie the claims made by the book. While William agreed that Gandhi "had his faults", he wrote, "the mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma."
. Why focus on religion by saying "an Indian Christian"? This is an attempt to "appeal to emotion".
. Who is Xavier Williams? Any credibility on history? Any published articles? Any established history of reviewing books?
. In his own write-up William says he is no expert on Gandhi, what brings his frivolous comments to Wikipedia?
. Williams write-up has ad-hominem attacks on the author of the books. He suggests that the author is writing this book critically reviewing Gandhi just because the author is a Sikh. Please read Williams write-up, it has no credibility to be put on wikipedia, unless we want to put the comments of all frivolous chats and comments from all sorts of people on Wikipedia.
PhilKnight, I'll hope this time user:Goingoveredge respects Wikipedia policies despite the fact that he has continually avoided them and disguised his moves by creating prejudice against other editors by calling them with all sorts of derogatory addresses unwarranted. Last time this page was protected he came back and started the same tactics as soon as the page became unprotected again. So where does this stop? The editors who are willing to have a reasonable discussion are being continually choked and he even fails to have an appropriate discussion via the discussion page. This kind of activity is called propaganda where discussion is avoided (because they cannot back it up with reason) and POV is pushed hard by hiding it with all sorts of tactics like - creating prejudice, hatred, confusion, bombarding wrong information, wasting others time and what not. Hoping against hope, your action of protecting the page for a week bears fruit. I can guarantee otherwise. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the "editors" in question (two) are mutual meatpuppets who edit against established consensus (talk to User:utcursch, who worked extensively on fixing up the article last week, as well as his talk page comments and the Personal attacks and manufactured victimology levelled against him by the Khalistani trolls) with impressive synchronicity. This kind of activity is called trolling (and, in their case, racist , denialist and revisionist trolling). I don't see why wikipedians should show any patience with disruptive editors who pepper the talk pages with hate speech quoting holocaust denialhate sites and other bogus references outside the mainstream peer-reviewed press in order to tout an obviously revisionist agenda. Besides, the review by Xavier William is published by a peer-reviewed source, reviewers bookwatch, and the nonsense touted by the revisionist trolls comes from some autodidact named "Baldev Singh" from a Sikh evangelist hate site where Hindus are routinely demonized and dehumanized in caricatures that mirror that of the Nazis that the Khalistanis accuse Hindus of being. I find it amusing that the trolls routinely make attacks such as "Hindus are Nazis", "Hindus are fascists", "Hindus are pedophiles" (and, in their circles, open incitement to violence against said Hindus) etc and criticism leads them to whine "look at me, I am a victim".Goingoveredge (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, the user:Goingoveredge responses are not fruitful to improve the article on Gandhi:Behind the Mask of Divinity as he continues to delete my postings [[[2]]and smear others. The above comments made by him and these comments here [[3]]
are not only bogus but derogatory,uncivil and are not aimed at all to improve the article. Nobody has called Hindus the Nazis or Hindus the pedophile here. The rampant use of abusive terminology to discredit critical reviewers of Gandhi is aimed at the character vilification and ethnic vilification. We are here to discuss and contribute to the betterment of the article but the user:Goingoveredge has restored to continuous lies about author and calling other editors "bombers" and "terrorists". Christopher Hitchens called Gandhi a Hindu fundamentalist and Penn and Teller called Gandhi a racist on the accounts of the Gandhi:Behind the Mask of divinity. So will the Gandhi Propaganda Machine label them as anti-Hindu? This bogey of of anti-hindu and whinning about the demand of state of Khalistan and deleting the postings of others is not fruitful towards the improvement of article. All this has no relevance whatsoever with the purpose of improving the article.
Could you please tell me why you banned my IP from editing for 12 months? It's not a serious problem, because I can still log in and edit, but I'm curious as to why it happened. Thanks, Simon9 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Simon, I'm not sure, because I don't know your IP and I've blocked a few IPs for 12 months. However, the most common reason is persistent vandalism. The only 'unusual' block I can think of was blocking the IP of a user called Sceptre who was evading a block on his main account. I suggest you have a look at the block log, which can be viewed by clicking on the IP's "user contributions", and then "block log" should be an option in the line under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the top of the page. Hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You da man bro! I read through your talk page and you are a super helpful fellow. Anyway, I'm another noobie causing problems. But here's the thing, peeps on the Clarence Thomas page keep posting false statements with bogus sourcing about the Anita Hill controversy. I keep trying to correct it and I've tried using their talk pages and the discussion page, but yo it seems like a losing battle. Can you provide me with a Hindu prayer or some king of Yogic position that will provide me with peace of mind so I can just let go? Or maybe you have some advice for how to keep falsehoods out of articles? I've already been threatened with some sort of banishment or whatever. Thanks bro.(Wallamoose (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:Not fair use requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PhilKnight - if you have time it'd be nice if you could have a quick look at this discussion. I'm not really a party in the dispute but volunteered to provided a WP:30. I tried to mediate a bit after that and kept the page on my watch list. My observation is that the article is still deadlocked and the discussion is not as civil as it should be (IMHO).
I don't want to give my personal opinion here, let's just say my temper is getting a bit short. Maybe it would be good if another neutral person, with admin powers, checked this out and if necessary issues some stronger warnings. Averell (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you -- I'm not sure what the proper procedure is. But... Could you freeze the Martin Anderson Controversy page again? Ford1206 insists on changing it in an inappropriate manner. This is an old issue, and the data is pretty obvious. I would be happy to submit to any appropriate arbitration. Thanks! Billollib (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
billibob and fconway are the ones changeing my comments down and the facts i put in there what they want is harsh words and against the facts of being raciaqlly motivated against this case which is not true. i would like to have my changes put back and left alone from these two who are against the guards and keeping this page one sided and very biased. thank you
Hi PhilKnight. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας•discussion•22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_6#Image:Namermk4.jpg){kind=link}
