User talk:PhilKnight/Archive36

Winchester Mystery House edits

Hi PhilKnight,

I'm a bit baffled by the repeated deletion of my addition to the Winchester Mystery House 'Depictions in popular culture' section:

I have simply taken other, similar entries in that section as my guide, so any additional pointers will be gratefully received.

Sincerely,

212.54.183.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.183.10 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel

This is the first time I have mediated a case, and I was wondering if you could maybe co-mediate it with me? Let me know :) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 15:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UNC-CH seal.png

A user just immediately re-uploaded a fair use image that you deleted and is also displaying it on his user page now, underneath the sockpuppet notice for the case I opened since another user did a very similar thing yesterday. Is there anything that can be done? LostOldPassword (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which Talk Page?

I try to stay on subject and discuss relevant issues with the article on talk pages. If it appears that I'm using the page as a general forum, that is not my intent, though sometimes I can be wordy I usually try to present my view about a particular point and then follow up with my reasons why...I55ere (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You said here that "policy is to give preference to sister projects". Could you give me the link to where that is written, if indeed it is a written policy? Briefly searching I didn't find it. Moreover, even with that being the case, note that the wikisource version of the book is already linked to in the first paragraph of the article.

Also, I don't quite understand some of the changes that "Lightbot" made. Isn't it standard to link to a calendar year's article when that year is mentioned? PSWG1920 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PSWG1920, have a look at WP:SISTER, also I agree the bot doesn't seem to following WP:DATE.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this "attack page" was explicitly written in front of Anthony Gargiulo

As stated above, I was given proper authorization by Anthony Gargiulo himself. I do not see the merit in distinguishing this page as an attack page because of this. Had I written defamatory remarks, I might agree with you however, the very definition of defamation requires an "unwanted, unauthorized" use of words against a persons will. Can you please clarify this ruling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjg1137 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page

Hi, I've been trying to contact the wiki rep at Hong Kong - (wikimedia.hong.kong@gmail.com) to try to discuss the page that has been put up. I'm writing from an interactive agency and we are running an online contest, to lead users to Wiki to find info. The contest runs for 3 months (Jul - Sep 08), and we would really like to use wiki in the contest.

Is there any way you can allow us to put up the page (which is essentially a bio page of Lewis Hamilton, the F1 driver, provided by his manager), and have it locked for the duration of the campaign?

I understand that there's already a Lewis Hamilton page on wiki, but the problem is that it contains information that is not suitable for the campaign- e.g. about him facing racism.

Can you please advise if you are able to help or offer some advice?

thanks for your time!

Proxnescafe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barry

Page protected - pls. correct "renowned nationlist" to "nationalist" (POV rv & misspelling). 216.194.4.151 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection

Hi there, I noticed Virtual Magic Kingdom was under Category:Protected pages with expiry expired. Yet it seems you set the expiry date for the 25th of this month. I'm not sure if I could fix this if I tried, so figured I should notify you. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stepshep, thanx for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMAT Berrima

Can I suggest that it does not need an AfD at all, just a bit of editing. See what I have done with HMT Southland from same stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIY HD monitor

Hi PhilKnight, I was a little surprised by such a rapid deletion of my article, which, actually was under the construction. Could you please give some details of that? Should I use wikiHow for such things, or was it because of links to other shops? By the way, I would be very gratefull if you can provide me the text of article. Thanks. Cheers, Denis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davydden (talk • contribs) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of barebonesmvc

Please explain how the #1 result returned from code.google.com when searching for PHP & MVC, is not notable. Notability is an abstract concept, there can be no hard and fast guidelines, so let me knock that argument out from under you to begin with. Jemptymethod (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jemptymethod, I suggest you have a look at the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it, so I would appreciate it if you'd cite something specific from those guidelines. This whole thing is a farce, I created a link to an article that didn't exist, created an article one line in length, intending to flesh it out within minutes if not seconds, but some bot immediately flagged the new article. If I'd have originally posted the content that you finally deleted, then linked to that, the bot would never have complained, and you wouldn't even know of the existence of the article. But now that you and other sysops do know, if the article gets re-created, you'll be all over it like white on rice. So now essentially the article can never exist, because of an aggressive bot, and what I believe to be myopic rules lawyering.Jemptymethod (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection/range ban

That user has been incredibly disruptive in the last few weeks.

Quick question, what does range protection cover exactly? Blocks all 217.xxx.xxx.xxx on all articles or on select articles?

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, Wknight94 did the range block, and I did the protects. (btw we're not related.) PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that after I came here. Either way, thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for deleting my botched upload. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this allowed?

here a new user has moved their talk page to a new name in the namespace. Can you please advise? Cheers Monster Under Your Bed (talk 2 me) 13:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I've reverted. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Srilankangovtwatchdog

Hi PhilKnight - I am concerned that you decided to block User:Srilankangovtwatchdog when I had just left a message on WP:AIV that I was not going to block because of the nature of the communication made to this editor, and the fact that his edits were not vandalism but a content dispute. Can you please explain to me why you decided to overrule my position before I had even had a chance to leave a message on the editor's page? Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker. I think you try assuming a little more good faith. If you look carefully, you will see that I blocked at 18:51. So, it stands to reason that at 18:50, I was looking at his contributions, and didn't see your post. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly reasonable explanation, thanks. That's why I came here to talk to you rather than ranting anywhere else. :-) I suppose it is one of the challenges of watching AIV; the last several times I've done it, there didn't seem to be any other admins paying attention so there were no edit/action conflicts.
On a separate note, I'd really appreciate learning more about your thinking process in applying the block; I'm still fairly new at this admin business, and there's a pretty broad spectrum of admin opinion on things like this. Just so you know, my hesitation in blocking was based on it being a new editor who'd been serially reverted on what is clearly a content dispute but was being labeled vandalism, templated, had made an effort to go to the talk page of the article without having received a response, but had had no direct editor-to-editor communication; on the other hand, his username is concerning, and my message (a modified version of which I posted) was focused on NPOV and reviewing relevant policies like WP:V and WP:3RR. I'm not questioning whether or not the block should have been made (it's certainly within the reasonable scope of remedies), but trying to learn how different admins view the same situation so I will be better able to work with others. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on your talk page and pick up the thread started by Rockfang, if that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 67.169.119.10

Hey, I noticed that you'd blocked 67.169.119.10 as a result of the revert warring going on with America's Best Dance Crew. It turns out that the whole thing was a false positive to begin with, and that he/she was actually reverting vandalism. Thought I'd make a mention of that, sorry if this is the wrong place to do so! --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Larkin Grimm page

Hello, you were the one that removed the 'speedy deletion' tag from my page. However the tag has been put back on my page by the same person, and I was curious if you could put your opinion on the talk page, because it's driving me crazy. I just want to get this established. Thank you very much. Samantha555 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PK, I don't think she grasps the difference between speedy deletion, pros and AfD. I've tried to explain it to her to no avail. I know the process can be arcane to newcomers, as well as some Wikiveterans. Even though we don't agree on this article, could you (as an admin) try to explain it to her? Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:VigilancePrime page protection

I requested that User talk:VigilancePrime be unprotected. You declined the request, with your rationale discussing the block of the user, rather than the protection of the user's talk page, an echo of your previous response at User talk:HyperVigilancePrime. I was wondering if you could address yourself specifically to the page protection issue. It was protected without a valid reason cited from our protection policy, and the fact that ArbCom is reviewing the block isn't the same thing as ArbCom ordering page protection of the user talk page. Had ArbCom ordered the page to be protected? If so, perhaps that should be reflected in the protection log; We can reduce confusion by citing policy when taking such fiat actions.

I see you've been active recently, so I'm posting this here on the theory that you hadn't seen my other requests ([1] & [2]) elsewhere. Thanks for your time & consideration. --SSBohio 03:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ssbohio, I think ArbCom deciding the block is only going to be discussed off-wiki is entirely compatible with page protection. Could you explain why you want the page unprotected? PhilKnight (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Phil. I have always known page protection to be applied when there is a problem with editing a page, rather than when an admin feels there's no reason to edit it. Put another way, page protection should remain the exception. The protection log states no reason in policy that the page should be protected; therefore it shouldn't, the way I look at it. --SSBohio 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In context of the userbox wheel wars which resulted in several admins being desyopped, unless there is a compelling reason, I'm not going to undo the protection. Sorry. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be sorry about. It was very nice of you to hear my concern. In this topic area, rational consideration and discussion can be hard to come by. As a matter of fact, the admin who protected that talk page was one of the admins desysopped at the start of the wheel war case, though he was given his bit back by its conclusion.
This situation is different from that mess in that the editor in question created userboxes that could be taken as pro-pedophile if someone wanted to see them as such. The text (more or less) read This user likes boys|girls with boys or girls wikilinked to the articles on Man and Woman, based on the common use of boy or girl to refer to adults, particularly with regard to attraction.
It wasn't the best judgment call ever, maybe even a tad WP:POINTy considering the firestorm over that issue, but not something that rises to the level of a permanent ban. Most of these pedophile-related blocks are spot-on, but a few seem to be overly erring on the side of caution. I just wish there was some method of reviewing these blocks that's more accountable to the community. Secret processes aren't self-correcting and can even be open to abuse, unfortunately. --SSBohio 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2008 you deleted IPhone in dock.jpg despite the {{hangon tag. It was uploaded on 16 June 2008 and as such did not meet I5. Also on that date you deleted IPhone Home.png. Again with a justified hangon. Please explain. Thanks, Monkeyblue 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monkeyblu, looking at the iPhone article, I can't see anything wrong with the images currently used. Could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Talk:iPhone#Lead image.. Thanks, Monkeyblue 07:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for explaining - I've restored the images. PhilKnight (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your understanding. Any unused, unfree images at the end of discussion will be removed. Thanks again, Monkeyblue 11:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ashley kennedy3

The above is deliberately provoking an edit war on Bayt Jibrin by removing sourced material and deliberately falsifying the details of sources I bring. She has been battling me on other pages, among them Ilan Pappe, Mount Scopus and Tantura. She blanket reverts my edits while including such statements as "Gilabrand's vandalism" in her edit summaries. She has made anti-Semitic and racist comments (which has taken care to delete from her talk page, along with any evidence of our debate). Her latest missive to me is: "You are introducing rubbish. I'm using Jean Richards the authority on the middle ages crusades in Palestine. You're using a geographer so well known that he had to self publish his guide book. That's not an edit war that is rubbish you're trying to introduce.Ashley kennedy3 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)" This, of course, is sheer nonsense, and her only objection to the source is that it was published in Israel. The material she brings to articles is laden with spelling and grammar mistakes. Her agenda is no secret - her user page is plastered with Palestine tags. When I (and other editors) fix even the most straightforward English mistakes, she starts an edit war. Is there any way to deal with this? I would appreciate your taking a look--Gilabrand (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Gilabrand, I've notified Ashley of the arbcom sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silwan when??

Ilan Pappe. The introduction is incorrect. Ilan Pappe rejects but members of the so called New Historians don't. Bayt JibrinJean Richardsis the authority on the middle ages crusades in Palestine. There is a conflict in references. Mount Scopus: adding sourced information. al-Tantura: Gilibrand tried to remove everything except her version of the Katz controversy...Gilabrand has her political agendaAshley kennedy3 (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashley, notifying you of sanctions doesn't imply that your edits are factually incorrect. PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and I have never been on the Silwan page until today and never made an edit on the Silwan page. Gilabrand must have had an edit war with some other editor on Silwan... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested that I've also notified Gilabrand. PhilKnight (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ilan Pappe sentence has now been removed and replaced with something factually correct and not POV. I was pointing out the heavy POV. Which Gilabrand kept putting back.. Same with the Katz controversy Gilabrand sticks with POV...The only person I'm getting into tussles with is Gilabrand and Gilabrand has many edit wars to her credit....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my dealings with RolandR, I have found him to be fair and reasonable editor. I think his comments here about grammar are correct. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His point on grammar was making the new historians the subject. my point on the grammar was the subject should have been Ilan Pappe. The grammar argument is a misnomer. The New Historian are an amorphous group. The tussle was not about the grammar but the subject of the sentence. The sentence became a slur against an un-named un-defined group. Thankfully the sentence has been removed....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Ref Bayt Jibrin please see the errors created by a hack and slash edits and reverts in Bayt Jibrin...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation on Zionism

Thanks for your note on my request for informal mediation. What, in your view, is the best next step to secure formal mediation on this article? BYT (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BYT, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case.--PhilKnight (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the link I was looking for. Many thanks. BYT (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi. I'd appreciate feedback on my first MedCab mediation, Copa del Rey, which I've just closed. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-09 Zero Mostel

please for my ignorance, but where should i post my response? on the article talk page, or the mediation page? if on the mediation page, which section? --emerson7 23:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi emerson7, I'll create a sub section for this discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on RFAr

Phil, regarding your comments on WP:RFAr: You're right, I did inadvertently revert the description of the incident, because I had overlooked that contribution by another editor. I spotted what I had done and immediately restored the link and all but one word of the text in question, noting this in the edit summary - see [3] and compare to the earlier wording at [4]. I did actually address this point in my original statement on RFAr, but I had to cut it out for reasons of space. I'd be grateful if you could reflect this in your own statement. Hope this clarifies things somewhat. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for explaining - I've removed my comment. PhilKnight (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phil. I don't think I was expecting you to remove your comment entirely! If you have any suggestions on how you think this could be resolved, you're very welcome to add them to the RFAr discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]