User talk:Owain Knight

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouta Chemical Attack

Hi Owain Knight. I saw some material you added was reverted due to using RT as a RS. I dont know if you saw my discussion on this topic on the Talk Page of this article. I opened the topic to get some ideas going on where to put it etc. Anyways when and if this topic makes the article this is the RS reference to use. http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_chp-deputy-revives-claim-of-turkeys-hand-in-syrias-chemical-attack_402065.html. Regards SaintAviator lets talk 04:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhanie army

In article Battle of Sofia you have referred to Orkhanie army . I couldn't find any reference this army. Can you please be more specific ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

You have deleted vast chunks of this article without a word of explanation. As this is highly disruptive and against the guidelines of Wikipedia, I have reverted your changes. Do not try to do this again without prior discussion on the article talk page! Favonian (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

Hi,

Could you please stop moving pages to names which do not exist? Neither Edith the Fair nor Leofwine Godwinson are ever called "Edyth Swannesha" or "Leofwyne Godwinson" in academic sources. Ælfgar (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did your username ever exist?! Learn your English, Frenchman! - Owain Knight (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of maintenance templates

I've noticed that you removed maintenance templates from several articles, such as Renate Müller, without addressing the issue. I have returned the templates as the articles are still in need of citations. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are meaningless! They impede the reading of the articles, especially when placed on top, and do not contribute to editing them. Some have stayed there for up to 7 years! People may be "turned off" from reading the articles just by seeing such a template. How this makes sense? How does this make the Encyclopedia better? - Owain Knight (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe a wider policy change is required, please raise an RfC to achieve such a change across the community. If you continue to remove the templates from articles on the basis that you personally believe templates to be "meaningless", however, this will constitute disruptive editing and will end up being reported to an administrator. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Owain Knight. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At it again

You know quite well that the renaming of the Edith the Fair article is contested. One more such disruptive article renaming and you'll be blocked again! Favonian (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Learn Anglo-Saxon before editing Anglo-Saxon articles on Wikipedia! - Owain Knight (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for it. Next time it's indefinite. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owain Knight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello! I've been blocked for a month on English Wikipedia for moving 3 times the article Edith the Fair to Edyth Swannesha! Edyth Swannesha is the transliteration of the Anglo-Saxon Queen's name into modern English! It is encyclopedic, it is not vandalism! I ask to be unblocked! I have translated 400 articles for Bulgarian Wikipedia and have high reputation. I was blocked in October for 3 days by the same user, Favonian, for defending King Harold Godwinson and Queen Edyth Swannesha. The claim that King Harold Godwinson was killed by an arrow to the eye is a slur on the King's memory and should be mentioned as a claim, not featured in the Battle template on the Battle of Hastings article! If I have been using stronger language, it has been in defence of the King and Queen and in my personal self-defence. I never called them names or anything like that! I made my language stronger by using exclamation marks! - Owain Knight (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You did this while explicitly knowing this move was contentious, but did not address this in your unblock request. Before making another unblock request, you'll want to read WP:CONSENSUS. Being right is not sufficient. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Being right is entirely sufficient! There could be no consensus with evil people! - Owain Knight (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kublai Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xanadu. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something you need to read before retitling pages

Read WP:COMMONNAME. It represents not just a site-wide consensus, but so strong a site-wide consensus that it is effectively a social contract that you agree to by merit of editing here.

We determine the common name by what appears most often in sources, particularly tertiary ones. I notice that Camael is not the first page move you've made apparently based on your personal opinion (your conviction that you are right is just your opinion to everyone else) instead of what sources say. Stick to what sources most commonly refer to the subject as from now on.

Also, regarding your comment about "evil" people, read WP:Assume good faith. That's another social contract for this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, link to the proper article name unless there's a good reason not to. I see that you're linking to "Hebrew mythology" instead of "Jewish mythology" after having failed to gain consensus to move Jewish mythology to Hebrew mythology. That's worse than being a sore loser, that's continuing to play the game after everyone's already gone home and calling the police to accuse the winners of stealing the trophy. You've even changed titles of sources as part of your quest to replace every mention of the word "Jewish" with "Hebrew." Seriously, stop it. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves redux

And since this is the second one in a few days, I am wondering if an indefinite block might be in order as suggested above. Or you could agree to only move if a page remove request is made and consensus gained to move it. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop replacing every instance of the word "Jewish" with "Hebrew"

When you did that at Lilith (again), you changed the title of one of the books cited, Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender. You also removed the link to the Jewish Encyclopedia article.

It's pretty clear that you've got some sort of anti-Jewish problem, which simply is not welcome here. If you mess up another article to make it suit your opinions again, you can expect to be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Wikipedian

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owain Knight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I Promise to Follow Community Standards, Not to Move Any More Pages and to Talk to Noble Wikipedians! I Have Contributed 500 Articles to Bugarian Wikipedia and Have High Reputation! I Promise to Seek Consensus! Noble! - Owain Knight (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined due to abuse of multiple accounts and failure to address the reasons for the block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Question

Are you also editing under the name Friedlibend und tapfer? Favonian (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like it. CU confirmed sock of User:Friedlibend und tapfer. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owain Knight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I Have Addressed the Reasons for the Block! I Said I Shall Not Move Any More Pages! I am a Great and Noble Man! I May Have Talked a Little Too Harshly and That Shall Not Be Repeated! Why Can't I have a Second Account? I Haven't Moved Any Page from My Second Account?! Why Have You Blocked Me?! I Have Contributed 500 Articles to the Bulgarian Wikipedia and Have High Reputation as a Wikipedian! I Met Jimmy Wales on 5 June 2009 in Sofia and He Liked Me! Why Can't I Be Unblocked?! My Second Account Friedlibend und Tapfer has also Been Blocked without Me Being in Any Conflict! Why?! Why Can't I Have Two Accounts? Why Can't I Contribute to Wikipedia, I've Contributed 5 Articles to the English WIkipedia! Just because I Wish Anglo-Saxon Poetic Name Be Retained?! My Contributions to Wikipedia are Worth Thousands of Euros! I am an Author, Spiritual Teacher and Yoga Teacher! Why Can't I Even Have the Knight by Edmund Blair Leighton Entitled Godspeed! As My Profile Picture?! - Owain Knight (talk) 12:09 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Ignoring a few linguistic tics that suggests you're just playing around: saying you'll "Promise to Follow Community Standards" doesn't address the specific reason(s) you were blocked. There are a number of reasons why secondary accounts can be blocked, the most common being that your primary account is blocked (doesn't matter if those other accounts 'behaved properly', you as a person were still blocked). That you're arguing about that only further justifies leaving you blocked and blocking any future accounts you make. You just don't seem to get why you were blocked. Here's a strong hint: you need to quit assuming that you're in the right until proven otherwise. Humility was the biggest thing that distinguishes chivalry from all other warrior codes. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.