User talk:PhilKnight/Archive53

AE

Could you look over the Mooretwin thread? I've got to run for a bit--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tznkai, I've commented on Domer48 going over 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptian "race" controversy article and my banning

If you want a reason for Harrison's ban, here it is. It's the most plausible thing I can come up with.[1]

Thanks for your involvement.

Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Harrison's ban will stand -- because I simply have no time right now to deal with the Arb Com. I've got to get back to deadlines. And so it goes. Again, thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I've already undone the note in the logs about the ban. I'll post on WP:AN/I, and Tom's talk page. That said, I wouldn't recommend that you start editing the articles in question just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, Phil, I'm not sure what that really means, but I get the sense that a thank-you is in order. So, thanks.  :) I've never spent much time trying to figure out the vagaries of Wiki policy/process; it makes my head hurt. (I know I still don't even fully get what properly constitutes a 3RR violation -- gotta read that some day....) I don't know if your suggestion matters much about not editing the article. Harrison's probably still got it on lockdown -- in which case no one' can edit it!
Well, I'm back to work. I am so behind!!! :/ deeceevoice (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Anyway, I gather that Tom has withdrawn the ban. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he remained intransigent/stubborn until the very end. It was only after someone named Elonka informed him that he was totally off-base that he simply resigned himself to her judgment. He really didn't have a choice. Again, thanks for your interest and involvement. Much appreciated. That reminds me. I should stop by her page and thank her. Regards :) deeceevoice (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ByrdGang

With all due respect, I've restored this page. The group is clearly notable, consisting of and having affiliations with several notable and famous rappers and artists. They have also released several albums (which also have articles) on notable record labels. User:JBsupreme, the user who placed the PROD, is known for being excessive and heavy-handed in his trimming and notability judgments; I try to follow him around as best as I can, but I did not have this article on my watchlist, and he never leaves edit summaries, so it's an annoying task. If you disagree with my restoration, I understand; but I'd ask that we take the article to AFD. Thanks. GlassCobra 17:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Hello Phil. How are you? Would you be so kind to explain why you deleted the thread I initiated? Thanks so much, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brewcrewer, it seemed to be a duplicate of this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying Phil. I fully understand why you might think so, but it wasn't a duplicate. User:Sandstein closed the thread because it made no mention of the specific sanction that was violated. In the thread that I just initiated I actually resolved the "problem" by pinpointing the exact sanction that was violated by Cerejota. Best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked more closely, I now realize that I shouldn't have undone your edit - my apologies. I've restored, and included an explanatory note. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. I look forward to hearing your input since I know how seriously you take the I-P sanctions. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

PhilKnight, would you be prepared to revisit the editing disagreements, on the article Scriptural reasoning, please? I would be particularly grateful for your guidance on a particular part of the talk page section . Many thanks, Thelongview (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thelongview, thanks for letting me know. To be honest, I'm not sure how to proceed - this is an usual situation. Beyond suggesting we wait for the meeting that he is talking about to happen, and then, after the dust has settled, request formal mediation, I'm out of ideas. Sorry. PhilKnight (talk)

16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PhilKnight. Thanks for spending time reading the material in question - appreciated. I interpret your advice as a suggestion to wait for a bit. I'm all for doing nothing for a bit in some situations, and this looks like one of those. It is likely I'll seek formal mediation - I hope that seeking your help is the right kind of preliminary search for a solution: I know that formal mediation is a last resort. Thelongview (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarene (sect) -->Nazoraean

That was weird took me a couple minutes to figure out why Nazarene (sect) was posting in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2006. You got to it just minutes before me. Jeepday (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with that case!

Thanks for dealing with the case, just so you know the new system makes archiving really easy, just you have to tell the bot to do the archive!. If you can, stick {{SPIclose}} on the case anywhere (best near the bottom) when you block socks and think the case is overwith will alert the bot which will do the rest of the work. —— nixeagleemail me 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nixeagle, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Mamusich

Dear Mr. Phil Knight

Please let me reflect on your deleting my writing "The House of Mamusich":

"For reasons best known to yourself, you created a 'new' article by copying House of Esterházy without wiki mark up, and replacing Esterházy with Mamusich. Anyway, I've deleted it. PhilKnight (talk) 20:40, 9 "

1. It is common for Hungarian noble families of a certain echelon to share common historical traits. In the practice this means that since my family and the Eszterhazy family were both pro Habsburgs who participated in the same historical events. They even married between themselves.

In fact my complete name is Milan Von Mamusich Ottrubay Tedeschi. You have to know that Princess Eszterházy born Melinda Ottrubay is my maternal grand aunt and a widow of of the late Prince Paul Eszterhazy. As such she was the sole inheritor of the Eszterhazy fortune until a few years ago when she established a foundation to manage the fortune due to her old age. Karl von Ottrubay my maternal grand uncle who used to play with me as a 5 year old kid was an aid to King Charles the IV the last Habsburg to rule Hungary currently considered for beatification by the Catholic Church. To your information The Ottrubays are blood related to the Habsburgs.

2. I work in the field of management and I am used to standard procedures in order to avoid redundant work. Why should I strive to create something completely new when I have a working structure? On top of that coming from my own family! I do not have to reinvent the wheel. This is why I have copied the structure of the Eszterházy page. I have also copied some sentences because as I said before, due to historical reasons the same events, philosophies and traits are true for both families.

I suppose people travelling on the Mayflover to America were hit by the same storms,shared the same faith, suffered the same viscisitudes and inter marriage was common.

The following is an external page on one of my ancestors Lazar Mamusich posted in Serbia (by a historian) and not Hungary.

http://www.zetna.org/zek/folyoiratok/81/grlica1.html


Probably the only English language page mentioning Lazar Mamusich is the following, also written outside Hungary where I currently reside. You may be interested in the fact that the Austro-Hungarian empire broke into a number of sovereign states after WW1.

http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/20ebf/afad4/

I have just started to work on this page to make my dad happy who 75 years old and had a terribly hard life. I have not even gotten to the XX century. You know my family suffered a lot. Nazis, communists you name it. Many members of my family were killed, sent to both nazi death camps and soviet gulags or bombed to ashes by american liberator warplanes. In fact my dad lost half of his lung in a gulag and my grandfater a condecorated war hero was killed by the communists simply for having been a haute bouregois / aristocrat. All they have fought and worked for centuries was simply taken away from them.

If you have any questions I'll gladly discuss these events with you in person:

My contacts are at the following website (the skype adress noted is redirected, just call me):

http://www.mamusichmilan.extra.hu/eng.htm

With respect: Milan Mamusich

Mamusich (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create the article on a user subpage, for example at User:Mamusich/House of Mamusich. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Phil Knight,

Thank you for your suggestion. Will the subpage have the same functionality as a normal page? That is will family members scatered around the globe be able to contribute on a free access basis?

With respect: Milan Mamusich

Mamusich (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a subpage has the same functionality as a normal article page, so multiple users can collaboratively edit. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kuwaiti companies

I realize this is an old AfD, but you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kuwaiti companies back in July 2008, and while I understand the closure at the time may have seemed reasonable, I was wondering if you would reconsider this closure in light of the result at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of companies of the Bahamas, the existence of many similar lists in Category:Lists of companies by country, and the apparent rewrite by mazca. The objection to the list seemed to be mostly based on it being advertising and promotional, but these comments do not appear to accurately describe the rewritten list as it appears here. It also seemed that there may have been procedural problems with that AfD, in that there was no comment in that AfD for a full 11 days after nomination, a bunch of comments happened in a 24-hour period after a relist, but then no comments were made after a significant rewrite. DHowell (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DHowell, while admins have some discretion in closing AfD debates, I can't justify unilaterally overturning a nearly unanimous decision. Accordingly, I think it would be preferable if you listed the article at deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MMMBop: The Collection

Hello, if you search 'Spectrum the collection' you will see many similar albums with its own article on Wikipedia. Some with less information, and even by less-known artists. It was a proper release, can be bought everywhere online and in shops. MMMBopBOY (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil,

You were kind enough to help with the CAFE R&B article deletion issue. I'm trying to upload links to Print references as suggested to further establish "notablility" ... I believe you had posted a couple links. I tried to post some more, but have run into problems (including the apparent loss of two links you posted "House Rent Stomp" was one). Can you tell me where the guide for this type of editing is? thanksBCarruthers (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BCarruthers, there is some useful information at Wikipedia:Dead external links. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EK

Phil could you please revert of Eugene Krabs' page moves? I can't figure out how to move them back. Elbutler (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron

Hi Phil, we bumped into each other while seeking to flatten the puffery from the article. I killed the Who's Who ref since the text there shows it to be a sales page. Do you have any thoughts in notability for this gentleman, please? I'd be happy for it to be tested at AfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fm yr edit summary it looks as if the ref I killed is not the ref you had inserted but you thought it was. It looks like WP somehow committed two simultaneous edits instead of edit conflicting them. The G books ref is, of course, valid :) It is not the one I removed! Weird or what? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fiddle Faddle, thanks for the note. Yes, sorry about that, I don't like edit conflicts. Anyway, I agree more work is needed in toning down the self-promotion. I'm unsure if the subject is notable - the Who's Who bio is the best source I've seen so far. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the terms of inclusion in the Who's Who. If They select then it is valid, but if one can self select then not. It is not apparent from the site I am really on the fence about AfD here,and very pleased that you are having a careful look. The actual entry may also be found at http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/cw2w3.cgi?p=aaron&t=2&d=2511 Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Raymond Aaron

An article that you have been involved in editing, Raymond Aaron, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Aaron. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Question

Can you take a look at this discussion regarding use of a non-free picture of Bernard Madoff? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if editorials or position papers belong in external links. Specifically links added such as this which is originally published as an op-ed at the JPost, or this which is originally published as an opinion piece at the LA Times, or many of the external links to the Adelson Institute. Just wanted to ask if these links are appropriate. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy, the external links guideline provides some advice, however in my humble opinion the links are probably ok. While they are a long way from the neutral point of view that isn't necessarily a problem. Links for different views can be added to provide balance for example. However, in several cases, such as in the diffs you provided, there are already too many links. In these circumstances, you can add the {{linkfarm}} template, or trim them yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didnt want to add some counterpunch editorials to be pointy, but shouldnt these links at least link to the original source? At the Adelson Institute they are not presented as editorials or op-ed pieces, the original sites all do. Nableezy (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While these should be discouraged, it should be done on a case by case basis and generally best discussed on the article's talk page first. The overall content of the external links should be balanced, those which are NPOV should be noted as such and labeled in such a way that they counterpoint each other, e.g. in an article about the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you could add both "LINK - a position paper in support of prohibition" and "LINK - a position paper in opposition to prohibition." Avoid becoming a link farm. However, if the external links collectively and individually do not enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, strongly consider removing them. If they are collectively not balanced, consider adding or removing some to maintain balance. Sometimes you will have to made a decision of what is more important, preserving balance or removing links that improve the reader's understanding. In these cases, talk page discussions may be necessary, or at least a notice on the talk page of what you are removing and why, with an implied challenge to anyone who disagrees to revert and discuss or simply discuss. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Feb. 12 Edit

Hi Phil. Craig Downie here from ETH. I updated the page to give viewers more accurate info on former members, gear and a few other things. Thanks for taking an interest in our band. All the best, Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillywalk (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seeyou again

Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user appears to be canvassing/forum shopping again, see here.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daedalus969, in the context of Famousdog being an active editor of the article, I think his post was ok. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on pullao

ok i will never edit any wiki article in future, because i do not under stand how to edit. i simply load my file or photograph and it is upto wiki how to use them, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miansari66 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miansari66, sorry for the confusion. I've added the image you uploaded to the Pakistani cuisine article. If you just want to add images in future, I suggest you upload them to the commons website. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Bernard Goldberg - Article & Talk Page

I'm having a heck of a time dealing with two editors who have essentially taken over both, the article, and the talk page of Bernard Goldberg. They work together to squelch even minor edits, thwart consensus, and exclude balance in the article. Edits which meet every possible criteria from WP:SOURCE, to WP:NOT are summarily deleted. While they proceed to ignore every rule from WP:CON, to WP:TE, to WP:FORUM to WP:DBF. This has been going on for quite some time, and I'm not the only frustrated editor. Their weapon of choice is the dreaded 3RR, and used two against one, makes it a pretty effective tactic. The two editors are Tom, and Mark Shaw. Most frustrating of all is their cat & mouse/good cop - bad cop routine. One will summarily revert or delete, then the other asks for discussion. You discuss and edit and the other summarily deletes. I would like to see them both banned from the article myself, but it's obviously not my call. But I would like to see their stranglehold on the article and its talk pages finally lifted. Again, I'm sure I speak for many editors. Even us ugly step-children with IPs do still try to follow the rules as we know and learn them. And it can be something to still find yourself in this position, from editors whom one would assume, know better. Thanks. Sorry to vent, but I hope you can help. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Another admin interceded and made the edits, so the situation is resolved for now. Still, thanks! 68.183.246.93 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently my belief that things had been resolved was premature. Whenever no one is monitoring them, nothing has changed. I'd appreciate if you'd look into it. Thanks. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of file "Lester brown.jpg"

Noticed that the file got deleted but don't recall any warning tag. Also, because you simply included in your summary "F7: Violates non-free use policy", it was hard to tell which part of F7 you were using.

I think this image was included with a "Non-free promotional" tag as it was part of a press kit and other publicity use. The only other image of him that was free did not, IMO, compare in quality for a lead image. Can you review this? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiwatcher1, the image was tagged {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}}, and I deleted it as part of clearing the image backlogs. However, I've restored, and listed the image at WP:FFD. PhilKnight (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hall Article

I noticed you reverted my recent edits in this article (Barbara Hall). I had added additional information (which was properly sourced) and removed an unsourced statement. I'd appreciate it if you could explain why you took this course of action.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Hyperionsteel, sorry about that, I've self reverted. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your quick response.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Alpharetta High School Page

I edited part of the Alpharetta High School page because I am a student currently attending that school. Everything I put on there is a fact. A few of those edits are only known to students attending the school like me. I do appreciate your efforts to halt vandalism of certain pages but what I added was not an effort to vandalize the page. Smcwashere (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smcwashere, I've removed the ghost story, the File:Example.jpg, and the File:School 74. I haven't removed the other content relating to performing arts, however sources are required. I suggest you have a look at the verifiability policy. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes thank you for removing the File:Example.jpg, and the File:School 74. That was a mistake on my part but the ghost story thing is true because I am the "ghost". The whole thing is simply a joke that has been playing out there and is part of the local lore of the building. I personally think it is quite funny and thought it would be worth mentioning. Smcwashere (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the verifiability policy. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream of Mirror Online

Hi, this is an article about an online game you deleted recently. I notice that the game got a high ranking in a recent poll and I wonder if you would move the deleted article to my userspace to see if I can make something of it? Also the deletion log says another article of the same name was deleted in February 2007. If I could have that one as well it may be useful. ~ R.T.G 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RTG, I've moved the article with the entire history to User:RTG/Dream of Mirror Online. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phil ~ R.T.G 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Conor Mitchell

Thanks for rescuing it from me.;-) I shouldn't have let myself be influenced by its creator's track record. I've added another reference as well and formatted it a bit. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voceditenore, the rescue was by done Phil Bridger (talk · contribs). PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I shall now nip over to the proper Phil with my message. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on Prem Rawat

Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova. I think Sandstein and Jonathan have already explained the situation, so I won't add anything. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]