User talk:PhilKnight/Archive47

RFA Thanks

PhilKnight, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade to Semi?

Would it be an idea to downgrade the protection on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to semi instead of full? Problem is not a content dispute, but rather a POV pushing multi-ip user/vandal which is now blocked. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Excirial, I'll unprotect, however please note that pov pushing isn't an exception to the 3 revert rule. PhilKnight (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement with this article is simply vandalism patrol. What i saw was a user who removed a section that seemed properly sourced after being already flagged for page blanking. Seeing the page history itself made it pretty obvious it was a different IP for the same person, who had been warned by other patrols before :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I appreciate your involvement was purely vandalism patrol. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hello PhilKnight. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Region Guadeloupe.svg

Dear User:PhilKnight,

' To begin with, thank you for writing up the fair use rationale for the Guadeloupean Regional flag. I know such symbols are of vital importance in humanity understanding and connecting with one another. Now, I happen to be trying to find where else this image is used on the web or otherwise in public, so I'd like to know how you found its source. I looked up http://www.guadeloupe.pref.gouv.fr as you suggested in the aforementioned rationale, and searched its entire sitemap, http://www.guadeloupe.pref.gouv.fr/sections/plan_du_site/ , but failed to find it. Neither could I find it on the Flags of the World site, http://www.fotw.net/flags/gp.html . Additionally, I asked the uploader, User:Shandris. If you have any leads left, I'd really appreciate them.

' Sincerely, ':)--Thecurran (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced response

I am trying to collaborate. Why have you not responded to Langdell on his talkpage for his conduct? Edit warring 3rr. You make it as though it appears that you are taking sides. Why have you not responded to my postings on the talkpage? Speaking of implying why did you imply that Voegelin was fringe as your first act as an arbitator? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LoveMonkey, I'm sorry that I've given that impression. I've now left a note on Langdell's talk page, requesting the entire debate about bigotry is discontinued. I've also acknowledged your input on the talk page. Regarding Voegelin, and WP:FRINGE, I'll clarify what I meant on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can something be done for this?

I've been extremely annoyed by random people CONSTANTLY VANDALIZING the "Pro Wrestling X" (video game) article. It is almost done and will soon be released as you will find if you go to their website (www.prowrestlingx.com) still some immature @#$^@% keep editing the page providing 10000% false information (that the game has been cancelled and that its makers are already on different projects and such nonsense). I have been re-editing the way it should be as much as I've been able to. Since I'm not too familiar with wikipedia and wanted to contact and admin, and seing that YOU are one, please is there something that can be done to prevent vandalism? Perhaps locking the "edit" option for a while? Or tracing the vandals and warning them? Much appreciated --MarkosChR (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, I've semi-protected the article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, much appreciated! Have a nice day! --MarkosChR (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re Ceedjee

Just noticed that on Ceedjee's user and talk page, he appears to have withdrawn after the JIDF threat to 'link up the dots' and out people they have blacklisted as 'extreme anti-Israeli wikipedians'. Most of us thought this comical. He is visibly upset and has apparently withdrawn permanently under a public threat to expose his real-life identity. Some damage then to the encyclopedia, and the JIDF's first real victim. Personally I think these things should be ignored, since counter-measures only stoke publicity for those that crave it. Still, I thought it best that some administrators should take note, if only for the record. He has been a fine, productive and intensely hard-working, knowledgeable editor and if he keeps to his promise of withdrawing, one will miss his presence, esp. as he is a strong pro-Zionist who however sticks to the rules and sources of quality, something which solves most editorial conflicts in I/P articles. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani, thanks for telling me. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Stephen Wiggins

Hi -

This is a page that existed for a good long while before the information about his disciplinary history and court records were posted. The issue of whether the subject deserved an article was not talked about at the time. Please undo the deletion and argue for the deletion of the recently posted information instead. Patagonium (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patagonium, I've restored the article, however I've also reverted, and fully protected for a month, because of the concerns relating to the Biography of Living Persons policy. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PhilKnight - I agree that the circumstances of his resignation from CalTech occupied a disproportionate amount of space in the article. This was a result of several edits by various users, one of them myself; as each user made his or her case, more and more citations to a court document were added to the text.
However, it does not seem to me that the fact that he was asked to resign from an academic position can be taken out summarily under the Biography of Living Persons policy. This claim was properly referenced - by means of a citation to a court document clearly marked "for publication" - and is and was already part of the public record. It is also directly related to his public role as an academic and administrator. I would agree, however, that it would be good taste (at the very least) to leave out details about (say) his private life. Patagonium (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Please do refer me to any precendents on this matter - I am aware of the policies related to Biography of Living Persons, but I would like some examples of what is and what is not unobjectionable in Wikipedia in this kind of cases. Patagonium (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of precedents, obviously, there is the BLP Noticeboard, but I don't think anybody has organized the consensus reached there about various articles into a user friendly form. Regarding the article subject, I think he is a non-public figure, and the policy indicates that in such cases, "editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." I consider this to include whether he was asked to resign. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a court document is something different from, say, a primary source that consists of an eyewitness account? The court document was presumably produced from primary sources provided by the university, the plaintiff and the defense. Are there precedents for usage of legal documents made available to the public? Patagonium (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought - a quick search shows that the court document was cited and summarized in some law reviews and the like. So - the issue of what counts purely as a primary source may be moot here. It would still be interesting to know the answer, though. Patagonium (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've unprotected the article, however please understand that you cannot add material based on primary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would like to say that it serves no purpose other than embarrass and harass the subject of the article to post information about an extremely damaging incident which happened almost 10 years ago. Phil, I invite you to read this article about sexual harassment lawsuits: http://www.nypress.com/17/43/news&columns/feature.cfm In so many cases, these lawsuits are motivated by monetary gain, and the system is not in place to protect the person accused nor their family and friends. The unfortunate reality is that, despite being cleared by the courts, the subject may see his capacity to obtain new employment damaged by this public discussion. In addition to resurfacing very harrowing pain for himself and loved ones. As it serves no public interest to publicize these matters, shouldn't the protection of private citizens take precedence? In this case, even the persistence of the page History is painful to those close to the subject of the article. Patagonium, maybe you have an axe to grind with SW, but what about his family? Letpeoplebe (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Letpeoplebe, I'll delete the recent article history. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Philknight,
I think I may stay away from the article for a while, but I would like to know what counts as a primary source as what does not. Obviously, statements made directly by X or Y (whether a personal enemy of Z or a family member of W) count as primary sources. It also seems clear that if a law review discusses the published court decision, that counts as a secondary source. The question is what the status is of a report in a published court decision about events that the court has no doubt happened - as opposed to an account by a victim or plaintiff that is simply not being disputed by the court.
This is a question of general interest. In this particular case, things work as follows. There are potentially embarassing details - even possibly prurient ones - that I have absolutely no interest in including in the article, and which are, nevertheless, available in secondary sources. On the other hand, the fact that Wiggins's resignation was requested by the university - and immediately accepted - is a fact that is directly germane to one of the subjects of the article - namely, Wiggins's career; it is also a fact that is in no way intimate, though I imagine Wiggins and his close friends may wish it had not happened.
Tell me what you think. Is there a way for me to raise this - namely, the issue of the status of published court decisions as primary or secondary sources, especially when they are reporting on facts - in the administrator's noticeboard? Or would it have to be raised by you (or some other administrator)? Best, Patagonium (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I believe I have always cited everything properly; it would be wise if no baseless accusations were made against the plaintiff either. Lastly, if all information disliked by relatives or friends of a subject were omitted from Wikipedia or printed sources, there would be very little that could be said. Patagonium (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PPS. In case you were wondering, there is a funny mistake in the talk page now - the link that supposedly leads to the definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources links to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patagonium (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- Wiggins is a private citizen, not a public person. So, in which way do his career ups and downs, whatever the circumstances, interest the public and the readership of wikipedia? How is this lawsuit of any interest to the public, or different from the hundreds, thousands of lawsuits involving people, other private citizens, whose life or career is turned upside down? Or, perhaps the question is, Who cares? I think the answer is, friends and enemies care. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid, so morbid interest does not count here. Why do *you* care, Patagonium? Why are you spending your time here, instead of doing number theory or some other useful thing? 168.122.1.172 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voegelin and Gnosis

Hello Phil. I've been away for a few days so sorry for not responding to your email etc. It seems to me that the best way of dealing with the situation is to allow LoveMonkey his way for the moment then at an appropriate juncture i'll add some criticisms of Voegelin's ideas from contemporary scholarship. Hopefully it will then become apparent that the section on Voegelin is unhelpful and superfluous. Thanks. Langdell (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosis

It seems from this article's talk page you are trying to smooth out some of the editing disputes involving this article.

A couple of days ago I made a few changes to the article, all of which were reverted by Langdell this morning. User Langdell, it seems, as objections to changes in the article that are not made by him/her. The article should discuss fully a subject that is of considerable importance in the history of Western, but Langdell's problem with WP:own seems to be an obstacle to necessary changes and improvements. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I might mention that Langdell seems to be in violation of 3RR. But I may have violated the same (I tend to think of a new day as a new beginning, and never remember to count 24 hr periods). The important point remains that if Langdell will not discuss the article, but only make accusations, it will be unlikely that the editing dispute will get resolved. In any case, I am starting to think that the Gnosis article may have become a POV fork of the Gnosticism article, and on that basis I may nominate it for deletion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a request for informal mediation - the case page is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-03 Gnosis. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, then go ahead. On the subject of edit warring, I gather Langdell was given a short block. Overall, my advice in these situations, is to follow the advice in Bold, revert, discuss. Also, you can always request page protection to allow the situation to cool down. PhilKnight (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave Langdell a warning for 3RR on his/her talk page, but I did not take it to the administrators noticeboard because I would rather he/she got involved in discussion instead of getting blocked. Probably now he will be even more angry, and more inclined to think others have tried to gang up on him. I would be just as happy to let the informal mediation go ahead if there is even slight hope of improving things through that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Tokaji article

I would like some help in dealing with an editor, Warrington, who has twice reverted sensible copy-edits of Tokaji. I had planned to do more clean-up on this article, but that is really pointless as long as he keeps reverting. I have not contacted him, as I am pessimistic about achieving anything via that route. Let me know what you think about this. Wahrmund (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnosis article

Hello Phil. I sent you an email earlier. Malcolm Schosha is a friend of Lovemonkey who has decided to 'take his side' in this dispute though he is posing as non-partisan. Anyhow, he has been removing large sections of some of the oldest content of the page, most of which is not my own work although I have added and improved on some of it in the past. His claim that the sections he is removing are 'original research' simply tells me that he has no understanding of the subject. Attend any class on comparative religion and you will find the same. The equivalence of gnosis with the phenomena mentioned is standard - not POV. Regarding Voegelin, since Voegelin's definitions of gnosis and his account of gnostic beliefs are heavily criticised today I placed a section reflecting this. This is being subject to the same behaviour that was occuring before. If you don't feel confident to reach a conclusion yourself it would be good to pursue your suggestion of a third opinion preferably from someone who is a religious studies scholar. Peace be with you. Langdell (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad personam

Hi Philknight --

thanks for the info. Incidentally, some of the interventions by other users on the Wiggins talk page and your talk page here have been extremely ad personam. Look especially at the very last comment by the anonymous IP user in the previous discussion thread. Is there anything you can do about the matter? Patagonium (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for advice on Oxford Round Table

I would appreciate your take and some advice on editing the page "Oxford Round Table". It appears that this page has been a battleground and is generally monitored and controlled by a few parties that prefer to keep the article in its current state, which is to say, that it appears to be defamatory in nature and full of out-of-date links and information, and in addition is not in keeping with the general style of articles covering academic conferences. I have read complaints that from time to time pages in Wikipedia become dominated by a few editors and administrators working in concert, and that seems to be the case with this article. Is there any recourse? I've read through the history of the page, and many factual additions have been reverted or deleted for reasons that don't seem to match up with the spirit of the Wikipedia project, but instead looks like rule-mongering with the intent to defame. Sidewaystory (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:NLT is relevant here. Here we see yet another example of an editor with direct connection to the Oxford Round Table saying the article is "defamatory." This is not idle; as mentioned in the article, the Oxford Round Table has already sued one academic who criticized it. Perhaps Sidewaystory would be so kind as to point out what part of the article content he considers "defamatory" so there is some basis for other editors to respond.
Moreover, it is not correct that other editors have had no input. As Sidewaystory may have noticed, editors with a WP:COI must strictly abide by consensus, which PigeonPiece did for a time. During that period, the article added, on her suggestion, the external link to the Forum on Public Policy, the article added information from the Huw Richards article in the Times Higher Education Supplement she identified, and information from the Journal of Education Finance. After PigeonPiece was temporarily blocked for edit-warring, she created a sock puppet, AstuteScholar, who added information on the ORT's creation of a new corporation in England and Wales.
As for the reversions of "factual additions" alleged by Sidewaystory, these additions were virtually, if not always, combined with deletions of material the Oxford Round Table evidently doesn't like, such as the external link to the Chronicle of Higher Education thread about this conference. This, despite the fact that PigeonPiece had proposed a WP:RfC to eliminate the link, and lost. Material that was truly encyclopedic, such as the new incorporation in the UK, was then separately added, in this case by me.
You can easily see that in the last 24 hours, the Oxford Round Table has launched a major vandalism attack on this article. Academic38 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that there is vandalism of this type on the article, as it leads to all sides feeling further entrenched in their opinions. PhilKnight, I would appreciate your thoughts on the current situation, if you have time to peruse the history of the article, including the archived history. Sidewaystory (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you made a very serious accusation. What part of the article do you consider defamatory? Academic38 (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice/help with Bombing of Dresden

I hope I'm not adding unduly to your workload; please let me know if so and I'll try asking for another editor's assistance.
When I came across this article, I was struck by how heavily it seems to be slanted in favor of it. So, I rolled up my sleeves and started trying to address some of the minor issues first. I carefully explained each edit, and spent a fair amount of time making sure the sections I was working on were worded as NPOV as possible. Where possible, I stuck strictly to what the cited sources had to say.
It took very little time for User:Philip_Baird_Shearer to come along and revert them. You can see his reasoning and my rebuttal at Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II. From looking over the history and discussion of the article, it seems highly likely that PBS will continue to do the same - he's repeatedly fought with people over it already. Any suggestions? arimareiji (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay me, I'm a prophet. :-( He's functionally reverted again, by undoing an anon IP who made a trivial change and jumping back to his version instead of the most recent. If nothing else, this puts him over 3RR. I don't believe that his arguments would wash to a neutral third party, but it goes without saying that I can't be objective about it. As it is, he's still only providing any attempt at argument on a few points - the rest has been again been reverted without discussion. arimareiji (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the earlier partisans against PBS has begun to weigh in again. PBS is responding, but I still don't believe the bulk of his arguments actually address mine. And so it goes. arimareiji (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg

After talking with the uploader, I restored this image. The image was removed from the Heinrich Himmler article and made more relevant in the Gudrun Burwitz article. Does current use of the image meet your concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_19#Image:Heinrich_Himmler_and_Gudrun_Burwitz.jpg? -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nv8200p, I was aware you restored the image on the 5th, and didn't object then. Accordingly, I have no objection now. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Storm of Light

Why did you delete the page for A Storm of Light? They are a critically acclaimed internationally touring band, with notable musicians, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.92.153 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted under the proposed deletion process, which allows for restoration upon request. Consequently, I have restored the articles history. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo (drinking game)

Hi,

You seem to have blanked Buffalo (drinking game) and redirected it on the claim that it has no reliable sources. What kind of source were you looking for? There's no way you'll find anything on JSTOR about buffalo, or any other drinking game for that matter. Keep in mind the reliable sources guideline specifies that different levels of reliability are applicable to different subjects.

If you're looking for sources, do a quick Google search of "Buffalo drinking game" or "Buffalo right hand" or "Buffalo club drinking" and you'll see that the game is documented by a number of independent sources, including a number of dedicated websites. For what it's worth, several Facebook groups totalling over 4000 members, across several different countries also document the game's existence, showing too that it is truly international.

Given that it has more documentation than almost every other drinking game on Wikipedia, I think it's an easy keep. What I ask you is what references should be used in the article. Regards, Oreo Priest talk 18:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oreo Priest, have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already did. I'm asking what you think. -Oreo Priest talk 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them could possibly be used as external links, but they aren't reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My question to you is what counts as a reliable source for a drinking game. I would think websites about drinking culture and beer culture would be among the most relevant, wouldn't you? -Oreo Priest talk 04:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they could be used as external links, however they probably wouldn't be reliable sources. If you want an outside opinion, I suggest youu post on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Hunting

Thank you for your interesting 'undo's'! I do assume that you too are interested in keeping this article fair & balanced. It seems to be VERY pro-hunting. Asking for a citation for opposition to hunting is very funny when you see that the previous source is from the Master of Foxhounds Association... a totally neutral organisation...NOT! Rather like asking the BNP for their thoughts on Hitler! I am sure that we will come up with a neutral article eventually. Captainclegg (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that 3-times rule. But will someone please explain why you do not like your opinion (for that is what it seems to be) questioned? Wikipedia has a bad reputation for inaccuracy. Lets try and alter that. But at the very least lets be balanced. Captainclegg (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question of my opinion. I haven't posted the info about the 3 revert rule to Owen's page, because I guess he is already aware of the policy. For what's it worth, I think the article leans slightly towards the pro-hunting side of things. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly why I haven't reverted a third time. As explained on Captaincleggs talk (and as you rightly suggested, now copied to article talk) he is trying to make statements unsupported by citations, and if there is one thing we have achieved on this page, it is reasonably robust references! Thanks for your help on this, although i think we should revert to my version whilst discussions are ongoing, but i'll see what you or other editors might do. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me if I have been blocked? I assure you I was unaware of that rule. I just reacted to bullying. Captainclegg (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying earlier, no you haven't been blocked, and I agree that Owain's revised version is a considerable improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Congrats!

Hi again! Thank you very much for your support and warm comments on the RfA, which passed today. Unfortunately, even though we work in the same field a lot, we have not been able to seriously cooperate in an article, and perhaps that will change in the future. Currently I'm working on getting the artciles of the 76 Israeli cities up to a decent level (at least B-status), but even this is a long-term project which could take weeks to months. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance

Hello Phil,

I saw you listed on WP:ASSIST.

Lately I've worked on Obsession. I have a disagreement about the structure of the article

In retrospect I think I should write less on the talk page and edit more. I learn.

I worry that I lawyer. But policies and guidelines seem useful standards, especially in controversial circumstances, and perhaps the only standards editors can agree on.

Have I read the policies and guidelines correctly? Do I unwittingly game the system? I'd appreciate your advice and assistance. Or can you recommend someone else I could ask? Thank you. -- davidz (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I've looked at the article history, and I think you're doing well. From what I can see, you have avoided getting into a sterile revert war, and kept discussing disagreements in a civil manner. However, I'm probably not the right person to provide assistance - I'm involved in administering the Israel-Palestine set of articles, so this could be a conflict of interest. In terms of who you could ask for assistance, I'm not sure - to be honest you seem to be resolving the disagreement, so I'm not even sure that you need assistance. I guess you could post on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and see who responds. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi PhilKnight, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMIB

Right, he's continued to revert war on the articles that have been the locus of the dispute. I noted this on the WP:ANI thread as well. Jtrainor (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, Jtrainor, please see this page and order whichever thing on the menu looks most appetizing. Thanks. WP:ANI is not part of dispute resolution. You should try to work out your differences rather than playing "the editor above should be blocked because..." As for the issue of copyright violation, I strongly recommend you seek User:Carcharoth's opinion on that matter. They are a neutral third party. Thank you, PhilKnight, for handling the unblock request in my absence. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Space In Your Face

Sir,

All you had to do was poke me instead of leaving some insulting template on my user page. Insulting -- because you don't even tell me what page you were referring to, because you dont tell me specifically what problems you think it has (or, why there should be nothing as opposed to something), and because about 90% of my edits are sourcing articles. All you had to do was say "Hey - I noticed that you reanimated Space in Your Face, an album which I has previously blanked for lack of sources (specifically please source xYz facts). If you intend to correct the matter please do so within a reasonable period of time, otherwise I will restore the page to a redirect. Cheers. ----" I simply presumed that the blanking of the page was vandalism - there was no reason given in your edit summary (dated October 11) - so I corrected it.

Truthfully man, at least assume some good faith - as your own user page so promptly reminds me. And for my part on the matter I do apologize. Sometimes things fall from the infinate TODO list into the "File 13" bucket and a simple "??hello??" will correct it.

Cheers then, Good day Sir. (and congrats on your recent RFA) Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what your saying. Sorry about that, and thanks for adding a reference to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Momma once said "trouble is as trouble does." Ok actually it's not a quote, but it's also no trouble. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black continues Gundam edit war

Since you've unblock Jtrainor on the condiction that he doesn't continue the edit war on Gundam articles. However, A Man In Black is continuing the edit war on Gundam articles and and {{Infobox Mobile Suit}}, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A Man In Black continues edit warring for details. Since A Man In Black is containing to edit war, should he not be blocked under the same condistion as Jtrainor? --Farix (Talk) 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has been blocked for edit warring; Jtrainor was blocked for replacing copyvio into an article. TheFarix has been reverting any edits I make to his template as vandalism, which makes his claim of "AMIB is continuing to edit war" a bit suspect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Farix and AMIB, I'm not intending to block anybody. I reiterate that in my humble opinion, it would be preferable to use the dispute resolution process, instead of continuing to revert. That isn't to say I necessarily agree this is a content dispute - it could be a copyright violation. However, I'm unconvinced that continuing to revert is going to resolve the situation, and suggest obtaining the opinion of other editors would be a more prudent course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AMIB has refused to discuss any of this. I am open to suggestions on what to do about it other than complaining on WP:ANI about his abusive behaviour and POV pushing. Jtrainor (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could set up a Request for Comment about this issue, which hopefully would encourage neutral editors to indicate what the best way forward is. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moravan Otrokovice Z 43 - past PROD

Hi Phil - I didn't know this had been PRODded and subsequently AfDed until it showed up on the radar here today. I know that this particular AfD has been withdrawn, but I'm concerned about how this aircraft ended up being PRODded in the first place - did it show up on an automated list somewhere? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rlandmann, yes it showed up on WP:PRODSUM. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't that just show articles that have already been PRODded? I just wondered how you had come across it to PROD it in the first place? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't understand. Yes, I found it on Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]