User talk:Philhorn

Philhorn, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Philhorn! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence (May 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence (May 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SamHolt6 were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reads too much like an essay; creator may want to read WP:MFA and WP:TONE for tips on how to address this.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SamHolt6 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence (May 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stevey7788 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Again, please read the comments left by the other reviewers. Nothing has changed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence. Thanks! — Stevey7788 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence (May 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

It is still not entirely clear what the subject of this draft is, and it is hard to follow. Please request advice at the Teahouse rather than making minor changes and repeatedly resubmitting. If it continues to be resubmitted, it is likely to be Rejected or nominated for deletion.

See WP:Markup for how to mark section headings. Section headings are delimited by equal signs (=), which are used to construct the table of contents of a page.

Please edit this draft as specified before resubmitting.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pay & Allowances ...[edit]

Thanks to all the 'Editors' of Wikipedia (who participated in this Test-Project) for providing sufficient ‘evidence’ to seek a court-administered injunction against viewing Wikipedia in India -- unless Wikipedia prominently displays on its each & every web-page a Disclaimer to the effect that 'Wikipedia is not a reliable resource' (this is already officially admitted by Wikipedia on one of its web-pages, and also by one of its Editors during a ‘Live-Chat’) because its Editors are admittedly not ‘Subject-Experts’ and, moreso, some of them have not even passed High School; hence, they may not be expected even to know the true Definitions of 'Encyclopaedia', ‘Dictionary’, 'Research', 'Research-Paper', 'Research-References', 'Essay' etc -- not to speak of being able to understand well the Philosophy of Law and the methodology of writing Legal Articles.

BTW, I am on the Board of Editors of 3 International Research Journals and am a Peer-Reviewer of another International Research Journal which is published on behalf of Cambridge University (UK), my Articles are published on Editorial Pages of leading National Dailies (English) and are read by Legal Fraternity (including Judges), my Papers are presented at International Conferences & Seminars, I have more than 3000 ‘Followers’ (including Academics, bureaucrats, News-Channels etc) who read my Articles published at LinkedIn -- all of them understand my Articles, Papers etc because they all are highly learned Intelligentsia (they are not individuals who have not yet passed even High School). The above legal exercise began when an 'Editor' published a libellous & false allegation against one of the very Senior Advocates here and, moreso, the concerned person(s) even refused to tender an apology -- rather, those who were duty-bound under the Law to disclose the offender's full & true identity, failed to disclose the same; thereby committing another criminal offence. Request to Editors:- The objections raised by all 3 of ‘Editors’ are about ‘neutrality’ ‘reliable sources’ & ‘notability’. You have not disclosed your educational qualifications, research experience and/or knowledge of Law.

Please note that neutrality means impartiality or non-existence of bias, i.e. it should be neither for nor against a subject-matter; this Article states the subject “as is”, i.e. neither for nor against. And, by implication, all court-Judgments (including those cited in this Article) are taken to be unbiased.

Question 1: Will you please point out a specific portion of the Article which is biased?

The sources cited in the Article are either Government-websites or Law-Reports recognised by Courts themselves; hence, these are reliable.

Question 2: Will you please specifically point out that source which, according to you, is not reliable?

With regard to notability, please search Google on ‘subsistence allowance case law’; you will get thousands of cases where the existing Law has been discussed & applied -- such references are ‘secondary’ sources because these do not create new Law. Moreso, the meaning of ‘subsistence allowance’ in 3 Continents/sub-continents has been discussed, viz. The Americas, Europe & India.

Please note that in Research, Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, Courts & Law the emphasis is always on ‘primary’ evidence, ‘primary’ sources etc.

Question 3: Will you please disclose the basis on which you have arrived at a ‘conclusion’ that the subject-matter is not notable? Philhorn (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original CU block executed by Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Certain 'Editors' have not only posted libellous & false allegations against a senior Advocate, but also insulted a group of senior & junior Advocates by arbitrarily & mala fide 'blocking' all of them -- please note that 'legal notice' about recourse to legal remedies (i.e. proceedings in a court of law) by a group of Lawyers is an Internationally recognised Basic Human Right by the UNO, and Supreme Court Of India has held that no investigation need be made into the methods used for collecting such 'evidence' as will 'assist' the Court in doing Justice, and such notice etc can neither be whimsically dubbed by you as either 'legal threat' or 'sock-puppetry' or 'vandalism' etcPhilhorn (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's as clear a legal threat as I've seen per Wikipedia:No legal threats - talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2019 (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.