User talk:PhilKnight/Archive52

Help

Hello,i`m new to Wikipedia,so can you see if my edit to Roman Numerals is good and relevant?Thank you! Jamiebijania (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Handling dishonest editors

Hello, I found you via WP:ASSIST. I was wondering if you could offer some advice on handling edit wars with editors that use dishonest tactics. I've given up on the specific issue I was debating, because the discussion is now longer than the article itself, but I'd like to know how to handle similar situations in the future.

Basically, an editor wanted a list of people removed from an article. Each person had a citation and the list was in accordance with WP:BLP and followed the guidelines of WP:MOSLIST, so I felt the editor had no grounds to remove the content. The editor requested a third opinion and changed the introduction of the article, making it seem like it was about something different (for which the citations wouldn't have been relevant). Unfortunately, the third opinion came shortly after these edits. In the two year's I've been an editor, I've never seen anything so underhanded and I had no idea how to properly deal with it. What is the proper course of action in such a situation? Thanks! --Elplatt (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elplatt, sorry for the delay in replying. Could you give some more details, such as the name of the other editor or the article? If you'd prefer you can email me. PhilKnight (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The initial dispute is here: Talk:Adult_children_of_alcoholics#List_of_ACOAs. Note how Richhoncho insists the article is about an organization even though it is clearly not. People seemed to agree with him for some reason, so I crated Children of alcoholics to be specifically about the demographic as opposed to the organization, and he then changed his mind completely and used that as a reason to argue against my edits there! See Talk:Children_of_alcoholics#List of people.

I'm really frustrated. Listing notable members of a demographic is standard practice here ([[WP:MOSLIST])), but everyone is resisting my attempts to add a list of ACOAs without giving any policy reason. If there was a good reason not to include it, I wouldn't be complaining, but the list is in accordance with WP:BLP and every living member has written publicly about their parent's alcoholism. I'm meeting with opposition from editors who are just saying that they don't like the list. The information is not private, it's completely verified, and the significance of being an ACOA has been demonstrated (see alcoholism in family systems, where I hope to merge both articles). How can I have a discussion when all the editors involved are arguing their opinions and ignoring policy? --Elplatt (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has come to an end, although not necessarily a resolution. An admin got involved and threatened to block me (erroneously in my opinion) so I had to stop. The editors in question removed the rest of the content from the article and redirected it. This has been an extremely disappointing experience. I've always admired the way most editors voluntarily use policy guidelines to have productive discussions and reach a consensus. But this time was different. The only concrete policy mentioned was WP:BLP and none of the editors could explain how the content was a violation. The rest of the arguments against my edits were vague accusations of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:LAWYER, and the claim that Wikipedia works by vote rather than consensus. My posts to noticeboards went unheeded, but the posts of the other editors were responded to immediately time and time again, leading me to be seriously suspicious there were violations of WP:MEAT. I am extremely disappointed in Wikipedia. -Elplatt (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoocares

Hey there, a new user, IDog rocks (talk · contribs), may be a sockpuppet for Hoocares (talk · contribs) due to the similar edits. Also, they are inserting into articles pictures put onto the commons, such as File:ITurtle.jpg, by a user named "hoocares j.r." Please advise; thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi moe.RON, agreed, probably a sock, and the editing pattern is disruptive, so I've blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I submitted a case to the mediation Cabal and for whatever reason it has been several weeks with no response thi is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Family_Foundation_School if you can facilitate the process it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!CoreEpic (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

Hi CoreEpic, I'll take the case. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you!CoreEpic (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

User:Seeyou

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

This user, despite the week block, is canvassing again, see: [1].— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daedalus, thanks for letting me know. Under the ArbCom restrictions, I've banned him from making any further edits that could be perceived as canvassing for 1 year. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does a topic ban work, is it based on assumed cooperation from the user?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent. Obviously, if there is an infraction, that would result in a block. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sif image

I hate to ask this.. but got any idea where the image came from prior to the Wiki on Marvel's site?

- J Greb (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi J Greb, it was used on Thor - Son of Asgard - Vol 1 - Issue 3 PhilKnight (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Images Copyright

Fergusson College

Hey, thanks for letting me know.

1. There's no problem with the logo, right?
2. The paintings are put up on several places in the college, and i've scanned them myself. Should that be a problem?
3. Also, i'd like to know more about the WP image policy. The pictures i took from the university website, were cropped and then pasted. So, technically its not the 'same picture'. Are there admins who actually visited the website to check if similar pictures have been uploaded here? Cause if that's true i had no idea WP was this stern about image copyright. (You got to excuse me for that, here in India the college really doesn't care about someone using their images. In fact several teachers thanked me for the work i put in on the article)--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sayitaintsojoe,

1. There's no problem with the logo.
2. With the paintings, a lot depends when they were painted, and when the painter died. Is this something you could find out?
3. Have a look at the WP:NONFREE policy. I was the deleting admin, and yes, I found the images on the website. Yes, I'm afraid Wikipedia is somewhat stern about copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey. The paintings were done by a local artist. Nobody could give me an exact date, but it was sometime between 1885-1920 (the gentlemen in the paintings were all dead by then). Moreover, they've been reproduced all over the campus- the libraries, cabins and college brochures. They're essentially symbolic now- we don't have other picture/painting of the founders anywhere else.(I think the copyright lapse period in India is 30 years after death)--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Argentina

With no activity on the page, no response from the participants of the relevant argument and a cessation of said argument I'm inclined to prematurely close it and end it there. Two questions: firstly, do you agree, and secondly how do I close a case? Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ironholds, yes by all means close the case. Obviously, if the participants object, then it can just be re-opened. To close, modify the infobox from status=open to status=closed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, ta! Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Title override

You clearly know more about these things than me. Can it not be fixed so that it overlays the page name properlyto lie properly on the page? (I'd be grateful if you could respond on my talk page as I don't come here very often to edit). Thank you.  _♫ Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Deletion Question

Hi ,

Sorry to bother you, but I just noticed that you recently Deleted the page/article on Cafe R&B... When I checked the deletion log, your name came up. Your concern seems to be that it is a "non-notable" band, and that the article reads like an Ad... I'm actually a member of the Band. The band has been together for over 12 years and has released 4 albums... This article was not originally created by anyone connected to the band. When I did stumble across it, I corrected some of the information... We're a somewhat critically acclaimed cult-following band that is based in the US, and has toured extensively in Europe as well. The band has counted among it's fans people like Buddy Guy, Elton John, Etta James, Little Feat, and Ike Turner, and shared stages with them as well. I was hoping you could amplify the criteria that mandates removal in an instance like this. Did you research the band? Read any reviews? It seems awfully easy to dismiss a career as "non-notable". We're certainly not household names, but it was a great moment the day I noticed someone had taken the time to add "CAFE R&B" to Wikipedia. I hope to hear from you. ThanksBCarruthers (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi BCarruthers, sorry for the day, I've restored the article. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland

Hey, I see a while back you blocked Eleland. As the admin with knowledge of the guy, I'm looking to you to see if you want to take any action based on this:[2]. While he responded in a similar vulgar manner to a comment I left on his talk page, I guess he's entitled to more leeway there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do look into this, Phil. Wehwalt is attributing genocidal intent to a living public figure, based an article alleged, by extremist political activists on a personal homepage, to be reprinted from a defunct Lebanese newspaper. He's been at it for years. He damn well knows better, hence my mean words. <eleland/talkedits> 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you freaked about my reversion of an edit deleting attributed, though not fully sourced material that says that Shapiro was quoted in a Michigan newspaper saying how he expected a new Palestine to be built, but that he denied saying it. This is not a FA, and attributed material slides by. I'm not sure how that adds up to me attributing genocidal intent to a living public figure. And I'm not sure how that justifies your incivility on my talk page, your talk page, and on the article talk page. I notice from the block log that you have been blocked five times. Haven't you learned anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, that material was added by an IP in October 2008, at a time I think I was getting on the Internet once every day or so in Sweden and didn't notice the addition that I can tell. A google search doesn't verify it. It was deleted by an IP earlier this month, and I took it as vandalism because it deleted a paragraph, there was no edit summary, and it was an IP, and I reverted it. When you rather dramatically brought it to my attention after you deleted it (rather dramatically) I didn't readd it and noted that I had run a google search and it wasn't verifiable. So how does that add up to what you say, and justify you being foul mouthed all over Wikipedia?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this matter should be in another forum, and is less appropriate here. Phil, I'm going to take this to AN/I. Thanks for your time in reading this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Wilson-inaug.jpg

Last week you deleted File:Wilson-inaug.jpg for Lack of licensing or source information. I had neglected to include the information initially. The ImageTaggingBot tagged it as Image has no license tag, which alerted me to my mistake, and then I added the PD-US to it. Did you not see the PD-US tag? Could you please restore the image, or explain how my PD-US tag doesn't work in this instance? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kingturtle, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting image in use

Dear PhilKnight:

You deleted the image ShortOctaveOnC.PNG while it was in use in an article (specifically, the article Short octave). Please, always check to see if an image is in use before you delete it.

Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement#Proposal by User:SirFozzie, you said "Possibly go even further, and require all ArbCom sanctions, even those not reported to WP:AE, to be logged on the admin noticeboard. I guess the reporting could be done by a bot copying the information from the log of sanctions on the individual case pages. PhilKnight (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)". Would you be willing to limit that to public sanctions? ARBCOM occasionally has good reason to take private actions that don't show up on-wiki, or only show up in obscure block log entries. Logging them publicly would sabotage the reasons for the privacy in the first place. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, if a bot, or for that matter a clerk, was to copy a new entry to a log of sanctions from the case page to the admin noticeboard, there wouldn't be a problem of confidentiality. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dibbler and Wiki's incorrect nomenclature.

I notice with interest that you have removed the comments I posted on the incorrect nomenclature of the dibbler. The only usage of Southern Dibbler you will find anywhere is in "The Mammals of Australia" by Strahan (2003).

Having worked last year with Dr Tony Friend, the scientist directly involved with the Dibbler Recovery plan and in charge of DEC's dibbler research, I can assure you that no one ever calls the dibbler by the name you have listed it on Wiki (i.e. Southern Dibbler). I have read several PhD projects completed recently, along with substantial scientific literature and ALL of these refer to Parantechinus apicalis as the Dibbler. The researchers from the University of Western Australia also refer to the this marsupial as the dibbler.

I look forward to your reasons for removing my comments. Cheers Michael (Wakefield). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.88.187 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, have another look at the article history - the content was removed by UtherSRG. PhilKnight (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Descent of Elizabeth II from the Mongols

How come you deleted it? Is there somewhere I can find the last version? Alex Klotz (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I've looked through my recent deletions and I can't see it. Are you sure I was the deleting admin? The nearest I can find are Muhammad to Edward III and Muhammad to Elizabeth II which were redirects to English royal descent from Muhammad, which is a deleted page. There are redirects such as Genghis Khan to Elizabeth II, however, I haven't deleted them. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant Muhammed, not the Mongols. I guess I'll have to find out why English royal descent from Muhammad was deleted. Alex Klotz (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for help with editorial conflict on article 'Scriptural Reasoning'

Dear PhilKnight,

I wonder if you might be able to help resolve an editorial conflict on the Scriptural Reasoning page. I will quite understand if not, as there is quite a bit to wade through - but we editors are getting nowhere by ourselves, and while looking for help I found your details on WP:ASSIST. I also quite understand that in asking you to intervene, I cannot ask you to take my side in the debate - I simply want a view from a neutral third party, even if that view should end up including some criticism of my own position.

The Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning page gives the debate in all its gory details, of course, but as I understand it the basic problem is as follows.

Scriptural Reasoning (SR) is a well-established academic and religious practice that exists in the US, UK, South Africa, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere.

On one side of the conflict is editor scripturalreasoning. (Editor Interfaithallianceuk may well be a sockpuppet for the same editor, but the page has not now been edited under that name for some time.) On the other side are a number of editors, most noticeably me, Nsa1001 and Laysha101, but various others have supported our side: The maulana, Ar2yeh, Chaisr, etc.

You will see from the talk page that there are a number of editors, including those mentioned above, who believe that user scripturalreasoning is using the article to give undue prominence to his/her negative appraisal of some of the founder members of SR and of the forms of SR associated with them. I believe that this editor's viewpoint on these specific matters is a purely individual view, and a misunderstanding at that, based on a personal argument that this user had with one of those founder members. As I explain on the talk page at Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning#Editorial_conflict,_accusations_of censorship,_and_NPOV, I think (and other editors have agreed) that such a personal view (if that is all it is) does not belong on a Wikipedia page, but that if editor scripturalreasoning can demonstrate that it is more than simply his or her personal opinion, it should be included in a section on 'critical views', and clearly and verifiably presented as the opinion of identifiable persons or an identifiable group. And I and other editors have further insisted that this disagreement, which involves a small number of people in the UK, does not deserve to take a prominent place in the description of a widespread international practice which is not primarily based in the UK.

Editor scripturalreasoning sees thing differently: he or she believes that attempts to remove or downplay his/her viewpoint (specifically, his or her claims about attitudes supposedly espoused by the founders of SR, and embodied in the ongoing practice of SR still associated with them) are attempts at politically-motivated censorship, motivated by a desire by those involved in the criticised groups to take criticism of their practice out of the public domain. (And it is perfectly true that some of the editors on the other side, including me, are directly involved in the SR practices that he is criticising: I and others have explicitly acknowledged as much on the talk page.) Editor scripturalreasoning believes that the article must state, in its main description of 'Key Features of SR Theory and Practice', that there is debate on the matters on which he or she criticizes SR's founders and the practice associated with them - and that any attempt to suggest that the debate is a local or personal matter is censorship. He or she has stated that he/she believes at least some of those who disagree with him/her to be liars, and to be motivated by financial gain.

You will, of course, need to check this description against the talk page itself: I've tried to be fair in this brief overview, but my strong commitment to one side and not the other in this dispute has no doubt shaped my account.

If you were able to help us out in resolving this dispute, I would be most grateful. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have about the dispute.

Best wishes,

--mahigton (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

arbpia notice

Could you please notify and log Tundrabuggy too. Like he is aware of the whole shebang, but hey "formal notification" etc. Didn't see on the log and all that.--Cerejota (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He was notified on June 2, 2008, at the same time as Julia1987 by ChrisO. PhilKnight (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban of User:Tundrabuggy

Hi. I strongly urge you to reconsider the ban. Giving Cerejota a friendly warning while banning TB comes across as blatant lack of neutrality. If you truly were watching the current conflict page, you should have discerned that the article is mostly edited by a bunch of SPA's that cropped up recently, all supported by Cerejota. They make these silly, yet true, claims of "consensus". The blatant lack of NPOV these Spa's were creating was just too frustrating and chased me away. TB has valiantly and and patiently dealt with all the bullshit that has gone at that page. The talkpage has been full of his civil responses, comments, and questions. Any ban will do nothing but cause the further trashing of the article. At the very least, he should have been given the same warning issued to Cerejota. At the very most, he should be put on some sort of 1rr restriction. Please rethink your ban in an objective manner. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brewcrewer, my initial thoughts were to issue an equal 1RR ban to Cerejota and Tundrabuggy. However, I decided against a 1RR ban because it would effectively allow the sterile edit war to continue, albeit at a slower rate. As you have correctly noted, editors should be warned prior to the issue of sanctions, and Cerejota hasn't been, while Tundrabuggy has. Also, Tundrabuggy has been sanctioned previously, hence, in this case, the sanctions aren't symmetrical. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

PK; I'm trying to churn through the pages of vitrol, but it's rough going. Are you also giving a de facto talk page ban to TB? (I agree that the "tick boxes" wrt to warning him have been ticked, but at the same time wish you'd made a personal talk page appeal as well.) - brenneman 04:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi brenneman, he isn't banned from the talk page. The problem was reverting the article, his talk page conduct seems ok. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you. - brenneman 12:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Request for help with editorial conflict on article 'Scriptural Reasoning'

Dear PhilKnight

In response to the statement by User mahigton, I refer to the following points:

• The sections on the Discussion page of Scriptural Reasoning demonstrate a recent editing history involving the particular users mahigton, Laysha101,nsa1001. Without violating Wiki policy on outing, I have very good reason to suspect that all three users are actually both members of the same small "Scriptural Reasoning University"/"Scriptural Reasoning Theory" group of around 35 people (ref. JSR website) (as opposed to the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" or "The Oxford School" with a membership of around 200 and a nationwide network of local groups and institutions), and also are all Christian theologians who know each other (from the Theology Departments at the Universites of Exeter, Leeds and Edinburgh), and importantly are all personally connected to the Director of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme, David Ford, either personally as a former academic supervisor, or collegially. In the case of user nsa1001, I have reason to suspect that he is a consultant for the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme.

• The actions of David Ford, Director of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme and significant controversies arising which historically eventually led to the founding of new Schools of Scriptural Reasoning, and are part of the factual history of the practice - these actions have been critiqued in the article by me. The nature and extent of these critiques has been referenced to national press (where criticism was levelled by a Muslim peer in the House of Lords, Lord Ahmed, against the the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme's conference and agenda relative to the Muslim community) --- and in regard to matters of principle and practice of Scriptural Reasoning on the matter of David Ford's episcopal overseeing "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", there have been resolutions formally passed by the entire Trustees and Membership of the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" in session such as the "Oxford Ethic" which explicitly critiques such a proposed "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" --- And it opposes David Ford's suggestion that parity between the three faiths in Scriptural Reasoning may sometimes be subordinated to "asymmetries of hospitality" (ie. control of a multi-faith group, by one faith). In addition, independent Islamic authorities at the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque issued a Fatwa in July 2007, again referenced in the article, all of which relate to the opposition to the idea promoted by David Ford of "asymmetries" between faiths in control of Scriptural Reasoning, and opposing David Ford's "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group" having jurisdiction over matters concerning handling or publication of Islamic sacred texts. In short, the evidence for all these events having taken place is overwhelming and has been referenced accordingly.

• This recent editing history commenced around November 2008 when User nsa1001 began deleting material from the article relating to the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" which was initially added in the first instance by my colleague user kurteasy back in 2007, and added to by subsequent editors. The sudden flurry of "new" users on the page Scriptural Reasoning since November 2008 corresponds to a notice which has come to my attention which was circulated among persons connected with the "SRU/SR Theory Group/Society for Scriptural Reasoning", who were thus rallied to the editing of the Wikipedia article on Scriptural Reasoning. User nsa1001 in his recent edits today again removed all reference to the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and all critique of David Ford's Cambridge Inter-faith Programme to which latter I strongly suspect he is a Consultant. All the "new users" have started to appear since November 2008, and all appear to be connected to the same SR University group of around 35 people or the Society for Scriptural Reasoning generally.

• The initial argument applied by users mahigton and Laysha101 were that David Ford's "Scriptural Reasoning Reference Group", "asymmetries of hospitality" and other points raised "didn't exist" and is not verifiable. With this now having been refuted by the referencing, the tactic has shifted to the suggestion such as by user mahigton that he is still "not convinced" which is of course, his subjective viewpoint and interpretation and nothing more -- Wikipedia doesn't exist to convince this user or any user of any argument, simply to state that these arguments exist. Moreover, the political embarassment caused to David Ford's disciples in the three users nsa1001 Laysha101 mahigton and to the wider "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" appears the principal motivation for the systematic removal by them of any trace of criticism of the organisations and personalities with which they are connected. There is now the spurious allegation of these being a "single" viewpoint -- whereas the simple fact is that unlike nsa1001 it is simply the case that I have not sent a round-robin to the membership of the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and "rallied troops". The existence of our Oxford Ethic and other resolutions officially voted by the membership as a community and sanctioned by the Charity Trustees as a community, as well as published fatwas from independent Islamic authorities, and national press articles are sufficient evidence for the truth and recognition of these statements.

It is notable that user nsa1001 on the discussion page has accepted that these matters are factually accurate -- while simultaneously on the article itself removing all reference to the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and the criticism of organisations to which he is politically connected. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that our talkpage dispute has spilled over onto this page. I won't respond to this here, therefore - I'm sure this isn't the place for that kind of interaction: I'm happy to stand by the discussion on Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning as the record of the dispute between the two sides - and believe you will find there adequate discussion of all the points raised by user scripturalreasoning above.--mahigton (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that, in the way that one does with online disputes (do you know the xkcd cartoon, 'Someone on the internet is wrong'?), I did end up writing a lengthy response to these fresh statements of user scripturalreasoning's existing position - but I left it over night before posting it on the talk page, and in the cold light of morning have realised that the further wordage is unlikely to resolve anything. If, however, you do decide to get involved, and if you would like to see a detailed response to the above to help you come to some kind of decision, just let me know and I'll happily copy scripturalreasoning's comments above to the talkpage, and then post my responses.--mahigton (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent Meatpuppetry Activity Involving User Nsa1001 mahigton Laysha101 and others - Violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this accusation on Talk:Scriptural_Reasoning. I won't clog up your talk page by repeating here what I say there.--mahigton (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Phil, Further to my last message, as a gesture of good faith (and more out of a human concern for the other users as people whom I recognise in some cases, rather than concern for Wikipedia regulations), I have unilaterally dropped the Meatpuppet allegation -- notwithstanding the fact that I still continue to have profound concerns about the unethical conduct of the other party in this respect. I believe I have unilaterally shown some considerable good faith on this and other matters, and will now have a think about how to approach the editing of this article. I personally do not believe there is the same concern for fairness, honesty and openness on the other side, and am concerned by this. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Phil. I have shown enormous good faith in dropping a serious Meatpuppetry allegation out of human concern, while I still continue to have serious concerns. I had expected some reciprocal good faith. Instead users Mahigton and Nsa1001 have almost entirely deleted all reference to variant points of view from the article, and created an entirely tendentious construct which promotes one organisation and viewpoint. I have acted in considerable good faith, and shown considerable restraint. I would ask that the article's integrity in reflecting both sides of the debate is protected. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Companies and citing corporate web sites

I see you are an admin involved with WP:COMPANIES. Could you please look at Essar Group with respect to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 February 3. Almost the entire article is copied verbatim from a corporate website, as well as three biographies for the Ruia family. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flibirigit, I've deleted the articles. PhilKnight (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting the Essar Group article itself to be deleted. Although the biographies had no prior activity if I remember. Prior to the influx of copyrighted material, the company article was a stub on a notable entity. I'm wondering if a large portion of the info should have been removed, and small portions of it reference? That also brings into questions using a first party website as a source. Please advise. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the Essar Group article, and reverted to an earlier version. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the only other suggestions I have are the infobox on the article, and the banners on the talk page. I can do the banners. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. It need a couple references. I think the older version had some? Flibirigit (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Understanding Image Copyright Requirements

Phil, I'm new to this process and perhaps a little slow in understanding the requirements for providing an image. I noticed you recently deleted an image of Mike Quigley (politician) whereas I thought I had met the proper guidelines. Since that image had been made available and his associate directed me to use that for Wikipedia, I felt I was in the clear. Is it possible to use images provided by others, or do I need to take my own photo (assuming that would be accepted). Thanks in advance for some guidance here. ChicagoOne ChicagoOne (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChicagoOne, either you can take your own photo and release it under a free license, or you can request the original holder does this. Otherwise, the image is considered non-free, even if permission has been given. Wikipedia's non-free policy essentially forbids using anything else than a free image to depict a living person. PhilKnight (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil, this helps. What is the format for this "free license" and how do I document this to the satisfaction of Wikipedia? ChicagoOne (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChicagoOne, Wikipedia uses the GNU Free Documentation License, however there are other similar licenses which are compatible. Releasing an image into the public domain would also work. If you have taken a photograph, so that you own the copyright of the image, then all would be required is adding {{GFDL-self}} to the image page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for resolving the dispute. I know I wasn't too appreciative of your previous responses, but I'm content with the decision and again would like to thank you for not totally banning me from wikipedia as suggested by some users. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for listening to my unblock request, I promise to follow the wikipedia rules to the best of my ability. (Benkillin (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)_

Re: antisemitism

PhilKnight, please try to understand my concerns here. They are not just my concerns nor are they directed at any particular user. But the issue is always lurking in the background in any Israel- XXXX conflict, or in fact, in many articles having to do with Judaism, Jewish history etc. We can pretend it doesn't exist but in fact, many people are always complaining that "oh! no one can criticise Israel without accusations of anti-semitism." There are even professionals who claim this, ie Jimmy Carter or John Mearsheimer. This is one of the problems with editing in this area. It is the reverse side of the coin of allegations of antisemitism in relation to Israel. I think the problem should be squarely faced as a problem in this editing environment (ie I-P conflict area). I would do an RfC on the concept in relation to the area, but I have no desire to be calling people out for this, since the problem of bias is clear on both sides of the aisle as I said. Do you think it would be appropriate to do an RfC on the concept without naming names? Please do not try to deal with this concern by banning me from the area. By banning users of either side for expressing their view you unbalance the issue in favor of one side or the other. Better to try to deal with honest concerns. With respect, Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I don't agree with your assessment. There are editors who could be described as Pro-Israel arguing with editors who could be describes as pro-Palestine. However, I don't accept that automatically implies some of these editors, on either side, are bigots. In my humble opinion, vague accusations of this nature are unhelpful to resolution of the editing dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Radia logo, thanks

Thanks for editing the Radia logo. Radia is a non-profit entity, we will be discussion the licensing of the logo under s share-alike license. Besides I'm trying to track the logo designer for a vectorial copy. Thanks again! Ricardo Reis 08:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)