User talk:Lordknowle

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Lordknowle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Martin 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arrows

Plus I noticed your helpful contributions to Red Arrows, perhaps you could add to the "References" section what your sources are. Thanks!! Martin 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Havilland link on Sea Vixen Page

reference (Sea Vixen)

Additionaly what is the basis for the de Havilland website being used as a reference? What in the article is based directly on the website? I don't think there is anything, and have removed the section. It could be argued that it should be in an "External links" section however. It must be remembered that most articles relating to de Havilland on Wikipedia are on historical aeroplanes, ones not in production - thus the important fact is what they were marketed as... And we come back to de Havilland. Thanks/wangi 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reference

Might I suggest you read through those links in the welcome section above before jumping in both feet first. The link to the dh website does not belong in the references section simply because it is not a reference - it was not used in the research and writing of the article. A link to the manufacturer website would be properly placed in the External links section. I'd just like to echo what Arpingstone said regarding your tone - it's not very productive. Also, can you please sign all your comments with ~~~~. Thanks/wangi 11:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just love the comment about "jumping in both feet" - if removing an entry without prior (and equally civil) consultation isn't "jumping in..." then I don't know what on Earth is. Instead of producing flame wars or Wiki-World-War III, why didn't you just change the wording from “References” to "External Links"? There are some very interesting people on this site who are happy to enquire and ask questions in the proper manner – I have had some good private email conversations with people already who wish to know more about the jet portfolio. However, it seems that there also exists a small clique who relish their position as ‘editors’ in the same way that some traffic wardens get the “I’m in uniform, therefore you can call me God” paper-tiger syndrome. If the most significant achievement in their life is to be awarded editorial ‘power’ for an online encyclopaedia, then I’m happy to let them be – I have far more important things to be getting on with like running an aviation company and having a real life. Oh, nearly forgot... four tildes coming up... Lord Knowle 11:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the smile, and btw "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". wangi 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever!!!... yadda, yadda, yadda... Lord Knowle 12:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not my edit!

Hi! Please have a look at User talk:Arpingstone. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar

My apologies for referring to your link as "spam". It was a shorthand term that I was using, but I did not mean to imply that you were advertising a commercial product.

I do have to admit, however, to some confusion as to just what the organization is about? Is it connected with the Freemasons, or how exactly is it connected to the Medieval order? --El on ka 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I've found a better place for your link. Have you seen the page at: Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem ? --El on ka 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Knights Templar were dissolved in, or around, 1310 and their assets (and many members) passed to the Order of the Hospital of Saint John. They, in turn, managed to hang onto the assets until the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1538. Now are you telling me these groups have a website? The heirs of the Templars official website is [1]. Please don't be so credulous to accept any substitute. All the best. Kbthompson 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hiya, I appreciate your efforts with the reference, but it's considered bad form on Wikipedia to cite your own website as a source. [2] Can you find another source, preferably from a peer-reviewed journal of some type? Thanks. --El on ka 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Lordknowle, I appreciate that you feel strongly about the subject of the Knights Templar. However, can I please encourage you to stop making personal attacks on the editors who are working on the article, and concentrate instead on just working on the article. Calling names like "official policewoman", "majority shareholder of Wikipedia", or accusing an editor of a "confidence or inferiority problem,"[3] are not helpful towards a cooperative and collegial editing environment. It is also considered rude to include personal attacks in edit summaries.[4] Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, thanks. --El on ka 18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read all the protocols ages ago when I joined Wikipedia - thank you for putting the links in as if I'm some sort of naughty schoolboy who hasn't read the school rules. My comments are not personal attacks, merely my observations and opinions as to how you are going about the editing of this/these article(s) i.e. in a somewhat pontificating manner, as if they are your personal domain - BTW, that's another opinion, not an attack. I could equally accuse you of personal attacks against my reputation and knowledge in this area. As a the holder of a PhD in the subject in hand, I think I know enough about the Templars to be able to contribute without having a games writer keep questioning my intelligence. The home page of Wikipedia states, quite clearly, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" i.e. no one (except the founder), not even you owns it, even though you might like to think you do, hence the reference to 'show me the stock-holders certificate'. There are some glaring errors in these articles, and any attmpt by me (or others) to correct them are instantly edited out, or piled deep with reference requests which just isn't on and goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia. We are all aware of the State-side tendancy to re-write history, or manipulate it to show the States in a good light (e.g. Enigma - gawd help the remake of other war films!) - but on a subject concerning European medieval history and heraldry, please leave the edits out when they have been put it in with good faith to enhance an article. Having seen some dreadful rewrites of history, I am keen to ensure that the legacy of the modern Order is not compromised by inaccurate recording of the history of the medieval one. There are many people on Wikipedia that seem to claim to know an awful lot about of a lot of things, but we all know that people can only know a little of many, or much of a few (subjects). This article was started in 2001, and I can't see you joining the article until 2005(?)/2006, so I don't personally see where this self-induced belief of ownership comes from - perhaps you could enlighten me. Maybe you were too busy producing your own self-promotion page entry to be interested in such a specialist subject at the time. Who knows? Lord Knowle 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All edits are required to be sourced, regardless of who adds them. Nothing can be added from personal knowledge, regardless of how many degrees you claim. See Wikipedia:Attribution. I would also advise you to be cautious about claiming a PhD. Please read Essjay controversy. --El on ka 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take gross exception (and personal insult) at any insinuation of me not being conferred the degree of doctrine, by you making any comparison with myself and the person described in the link. It just about sums up the ill-mannered nature of you not liking being corrected on one point in my efforts to help get an article correct. And you have tha audacity to start having a pop at me for allegations of 'personal attacks'. I think I'll go and write up my own entry page and put the scans of my degress thereon and that way you could verify the existence of such. But there again, I wouldn't want to be so pompous or self-promoting, and certainly wouldn't want to get any such entry rejected by the European versions of Wiki as not being worthy of an entry. So I think I'll just carry on as normal, and let those of a lesser degree continue with their conspiracy theories. Lord Knowle 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 07:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Knights Templar. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --El on ka 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have admin rights do you to block accounts?? It would be an honour to be suspended for standing up to such autocratic mentality, so don't start threatening me with this type of nonsense. By your own rules you have already reverted an edit three times, so I think I'll also report that to the Mods. You are becoming a very annoying individual who has no comprehension of common manners except to threaten anyone who disagrees with you. Lord Knowle 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Elonka has written up a complaint about you here. AN/I states at the top As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting. As it doesn't appear she has notified you, I am doing so now. IrishGuy ^talk 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chap for the heads up - appreciate it. :-) I have just gone to read the nonsense from her. In the meantime, I have also entered a complaint about her defamatory misuse of the SPA tag, pretending to be a Sysop and contravening the 3RR. It ain't the first time that she's gone blubbing to Admin when she can't her own way, and I doubt it will be the last. Lord Knowle 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the content disputes from both of you should stop. It is a conflict of interest for you to add a link to a website you are affiliated with. That said, simply because you are affiliated with it that doesn't mean the site itself has no useful content. It should be discussed on the talk page for consensus. But you really should stop adding it back in yourself. I personally disagree with what appears to me to be forum shopping on Elonka's behalf running to ANI and then filing a 3RR complaint and in both instances she is suggesting long blocks. I feel that she simply wants you blocked and is looking for an admin to do it. This appears to be a content dispute where both are at fault. IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you will know what it's like

Dear Geoff, hope you enjoyed our game. What's it like to have your credibility hammered on such an open forum?hee hee. Bet you wish you never started your silly campaign, and to the rest of them hey ho. I see that even Mark has got involved... oh dear!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordknowle (talk • contribs) 10:46, March 21, 2007

This is now very concerning. I emailed Elonka last night about my scepticism as to the real identity of these posts. My suspicions arose when I received an email from (a) Lord Knowle to help edit the Knights Templar article. Looking back on it later it did seem diferent from the usual style that I would normally get from the person that I know who owns this account. I was very puzzled over the temperament and writing style of the edits on the Knights Templar page. The attacks on the Earl of Bradford seem very similar, someone who has also been attacked for their campaign against pseudo-Templar websites. LK is also very private about his involvement and doesn't participate on public forums on this subject. If he had wanted to do so, then he would have done so a lot earlier in the article's lifecycle than these last few weeks. Having spent a good few hours going through all his edits there is even one that was posted when I was speaking to him on his mobile. I have checked the date and time entry and on that day he was in Suffolk, over 200 miles away from his home. I would urgently request that LK's account is locked until this is checked out. I have emailed him and await his reposnse. HexTokis 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the phrase we're looking for here - played like a puppet on a string!!! Ho ho ho. Hope you enjoy your new-found infamy, you are your stuck up webmaster Lordy-cousin! CU L8er Lord Knowle 11:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For obvious reasons in light of the preceding thread, I have blocked this account for admitted trolling, harassment, and as possibly a compromised account. Further discussion at ANI. Newyorkbrad 12:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been made aware of someone using my account to create all sorts of problems on this site over the last few weeks. Having not used the account since a picture request for a colleague last spring, this causes me much concern. I have asked our ISP provider to investigate fully as we have good reason to suspect who is behind this. I understand that the Earl of Bradford's entry has also been subject to abuse and links to defamatory sites. Both he and I have been exposing crooked online dealerships that trade fake titles and other nonsense. Those engaged in this practice are fully aware of my involvement in the English Templar movement as they had tried setting up their own groups to attain high membership fees, something which should not be charged at all. Unfortunately such individuals take extreme pleasure in using this subject matter as a catalyst to create controversy and mischief. Please ensure that this account is locked until further notice and I may make a formal request to have logs of the supposed entries forwarded to help us in our enquiries. In the meantime, please forward any other information to my colleague on his account hextokis and he will pass them on to me. In the meantime could you please tell the other editors on the Templar pages that I am not the slightest bit bothered as to whether a link exists or not. Having read some of the entries, it would appear that this has been a major bone of contention. Hopefully they can now continue in peace. Thank you. G Beck, the genuine title holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.201.10 (talk • contribs) 13:11, March 21, 2007

As a followup to anyone watching this: my mailbox has been filling up with several emails, with accusations of spoofed addresses and whatnot. Not all of it checks out though, as some of the accusations of "faked" addresses, had email content which implied that they weren't faked. Investigation continues. As for the above post, the IP does seem to trace to Hertfordshire, UK, so that much checks out. I'm still comparing other IDs and email headers, to see if I can pull enough info together for a formal Checkuser. If anyone has experience with reviewing IPs and headers and would like to help out, please let me know and I'll forward things along. --El on ka 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: The Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lordknowle was confirmed, and the related sockpuppets have been blocked. --El on ka 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite confusing as I was almost writing to him. He makes some clear points also - and I do not see the difference between the real and not real Lord Knowle. There is too much fighting and ego with this place. Jan Antwerpmagic2 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]