User talk:PhilKnight/Archive40

Quick Thank You

I'd just like to say thanks for the revert to my userpage and block you placed on the user responsible last night. :D Mattie^TK 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Jeffery

Hi, you closed this AfD, but only deleted one of the two articles nominated. Bondz Ngala was bundled in that AfD. Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 90 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. All the best, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (Warhammer 40,000)

Could you briefly reinstate the page on my Talk Page? I plan to merge some aspects of it into the main Warhammer 40,000 article. GoldDragon (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldDragon, there's a full copy here.--PhilKnight (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! GoldDragon (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles IP

You might be better off posting it on the talk page he's created to carry on the edit war despite being blocked - Niraqzback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. 15 cans of Stella₃₀₃ 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000)

Could you please relist or close as no consensus? The nominator has just been determined by a checkuser to be a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a clear consensus to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In neither of the above was there a "clear consensus". And we absolutely should not humor ban evading, single purpose socks. Therefore, I strongly urge you to either close as no consensus and let an untainted discussion occur or at least relist striking the sock account's comments or linking to the checkuser. Whether you feel the articles should be deleted or I think they should be kept, we absolutely cannot be okay with questionable nominations made by block evading accounts that should not have been making the nomination in the first place. Don't we usually speedy close such discussions if it's apparent that it was made by a sock account? Even without that fact, we need to measure a discussion by where it's headed and after all that discussion, the last few participants were more moved by the merge and keep arguments in the Dark Angels one in the bottommost section break. As for the Armageddon one, yes, argument matters, but when that much of a majority of editors argue to keep, it's certainly no real consensus to delete, especially when the keeps offer original arguments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I think the nature of the nominator was relevant. We would delete an article from him, and we should treat a nomination similarly. DGG (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, but that wasn't the consensus here.--PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another checkuser (Lar) has agree with the results of the first checkuser and JzG has blocked the account in question. There would be no harm in at least relisting the discussions and striking that account's comments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I would just like to say thanks for your little edits and help here. I totally forgot about the fact that it was just because he hadn't been spoken to :). Again thanks ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a deleted page...

I just noticed my page was deleted and I'm wondering why. In reading the discussion it seemed like there was more than enough information to support keeping it, but it got deleted anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Caldwell

RapidMark (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding dog

On 27 June 2008 you speedily deleted this article giving the reason "(A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)". This reason is faulty since the article stated that such dogs have appeared upon TV and many websites which is an assertion of notability. Please revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion.--PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Colonel Warden (talk)

Dispute over content

Hi,

I'd be grateful if you could give me an opinion as to whether the content on these pages (below) qualifies as advertising. In every single case a Book, it's Author and the Author's status is mentioned within the content.

I (and others) have previously tried removing it but it gets reinstated along with a pithy comment. As per Wiki's suggestions I've contacted the person behind the edits to try and resolve this but one month on I've had no reply.

I believe that this is advertising and I also think that it shouldn't be there - but I could well be wrong. I'm happy to let this drop if you feel that's for the best.

This is the history of the page where the edit reversals have been happening: [1]. This is the note I wrote to the person who's reversing the edits. Included in there is a link to the other pages where the book is featured: [2] David T Tokyo (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil - any thoughts on this - or would you rather I take it elsewhere? David T Tokyo (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "merge & redirect" decisions

Just a question: in decisions such as this one, who is typically expected to do the merging? It's all well and good to write that the decision is to "merge", but what seems to often end up happening is that nobody actually carries the decision out, and it's left to random users to accidentally stumble upon the deletion discussions and realize this.

I've come upon more than one case like this, and was wondering if there's some kind of policy about it. Esn (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Esn, sometimes the content is merged by an editor during the discussion, sometimes by the admin when closing, and sometimes by an editor following closure. In all honesty, I think a lot of the time it's preferable if the merge is done by an editor who has expertise in the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem reasonable. But if that's the plan (have somebody knowledgeable do it after the discussion closes), then it would be best to leave a notice on the talk page of the article that the merging is to be done into. Otherwise, you're just left with the hope that some person will eventually notice that the decision was not carried out, which will only be done by someone curious enough to look at the history of a redirect page...

Anyway, I've already posted a notice on the talk page of the article in question. These are just some thoughts for the future. Esn (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added a proposal here. Esn (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:24.191.212.60

Just an FYI, but I unblocked this IP per Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses saying that IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. The IP was blocked for 22 days, which is quite long for a first block, so I decided not to re-block for a period of time after unblocking. If you feel this is necessary, however, you are of course free to do so. VegaDark (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VegaDark, thanks for fixing my mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anekantavada FAC nomination

Maybe you can have a peek at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anekantavada. I am trying to assume good faith, but somehow certain objections raised seem to a bit frivolous even after giving proper explanation. I hope you can chip in something. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hi. You protected a version of Twelver Shi`ism that was edited by a disruptive user who has been removing sourced material in numerous articles, has been stalking my edits and who, breaking Wikipedia policy, created a sockpuppet account to prove his point. Please revert the article to the previous consensus version and protect the article. GreenEcho (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who requested protection for the article, User:Vitriulum, is a sockpuppet of User:Hiram111, who was disrupting the article Twelver Shi'ism. He created another account, Special:Contributions/Macabricvoid, to revert my edit on Twelvers. I'm requesting that he be blocked for violating Wikipedia:SOCK. GreenEcho (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreenEcho, the protection policy says "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons." Therefore, unless the disputed content is a clear cut policy violation, I can't remove it. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McMullen (broadcaster)

Thanks for improving John McMullen (broadcaster) and for changing your !vote at its AfD. It's this kind of collaboration that first drew me to the project, and it's what keeps me here. --SSBohio 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi PhilKnight, Hope this finds you well. Thanks for checking in on the bulldozer comment - I did not know the situation was being monitored and it was a surprise to see such action taken. I was too overwhelmed dealing with other issues to report it, but I feel slightly less 'besieged' now, seeing that others have taken a wee bit of interest in the matter. Thanks again. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_in_Music

Could you explain your closing here? At the very least, I believe this should have been closed as "no consensus". I had no involvement with the page prior to its nomination for deletion, but I was able to personally verify and add reliable sources for at least 12 items in the page, and was working on verifying more of them, so I fail to see how this is contrary to WP:CRYSTAL or any other Wikipedia policy. Even if all but those 12 items were removed, the article would have still been a reliably sourced list about scheduled events in music in 2009. DHowell (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DHowell, I think 2009 in Music was 'future history', a type of article that isn't allowed under WP:CRYSTAL.--PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that reasoning also apply to 2009 in film and 2009 in television? 2010 in spaceflight? 2011 in sports? 2012 Summer Olympics and 2016 Summer Olympics? Year 2038 problem? Technological singularity? Green Wall of China? Why or why not? DHowell (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not responded, I have asked for a deletion review of this article. Cheers. DHowell (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Peace Bear deletion

Ty Peace Bear was blanked by a bug mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bug: revisions/pagesizes/pagerendering/wikisource not matching up, resulting in blanking or page replacements. As far as I know, the fact that the page was blanked by a bug and not by the creator could only be seen by the page size not being 0 in the page history, so I definitely don't blame you for deleting it. I have undeleted it after seing the creator post to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#My article disapeared. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for restoring the article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, PhilKnight!

I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hi, I'm interested in working with MedCab. I see that theoretically one can just join in right away, but I'd like to be on solid footing first. I plan to watch MedCab proceedings for the next month or two, to get an idea of how best to proceed. Having been at WP for ages, on and off, I'm familiar with our core policies and most others as well, but is there any special reading material or advice which might be useful to a wannabe informal mediator like me? Any model cases? Thanks in advance. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. IP, you could have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators, if you haven't already. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. Somehow I missed that. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of Chip Berlet

According to the protection log, the protecton expires 23:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC), which was the exact time the protection was done by you. How does that work? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marvin, not sure if this the answer you're looking for, but when protecting a page admins can either specify an end date, or give a duration. Obviously, in this case, I gave a duration of a month. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does no make any sense?!

Why do you block my changes? I am just provideing a useful site that gives more information on the history of baseball. I think if you block this why is there a need for external links? I am not doing anything wrong and destorying the writing there except making the letters blue. Maybe this is one of the reasons nobody likes wikipedia.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.225.187 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I replied Thingg^⊕^⊗ 03:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thingg, I blocked him at the same time as you replied. PhilKnight (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VigilancePrime/UsertalkArchive

Hi Phil, can you please undelete the above page? It's the user talk page of a banned user, and contain an important history of why he was banned, including many links to it from AN/I discussion. We don't normally delete these pages. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan, of course - my mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - the title suggests it was just a cut and paste archive history, but he moved his talk page yesterday to the page. Thanks for you understanding. Ryan Postlethwaite^See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

PhilKnight, Thank you for taking the time to consider my request for unblocking. I realize that you are a volunteer and it must be difficult to try to quickly assess a situation on a topic with which you are not involved and the particulars of the dispute which are unknown to you.

However, since you have volunteered to do this, I would respectfully ask that in the future you take an appropriate amount of time to understand the issues before responding. If you are unable to do this perhaps it would be best if you decline this role. Please allow me to address your comments.

First of all, I'm not sure why you would cite the WP "biographies of living persons" policy. The article in question is A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, not an article about a person. Additionally, the Edit History Summary which I requested you review would have made it clear that the dispute was about the use of the term "Darwinism". Certain editors have asserted that in current discourse only creationists use term. This leads to my second point.

Apparently you're not familiar with British biologist Richard Dawkins. There are two things for which he is particularly famous: he is an atheist and a Darwinist. As such he is publicly known as a "scourge of creationists." He is also pleased to be known as "Darwin's Rotweiller". [1][2]

As reported on in the Times Online, he will be featured in an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin". In that interview, Dawkins specifically states that his film is about Darwinism. So his frequent and recurring use of the term is incredibly relevant to the article. Which is why I cited his well-known book, The Blind Watchmaker, (TBW).

• Dawkins, Richard (1996) [1986]. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.

The other editors to this page and dave souza in particular are well aware of this. If you were to have reviewed the Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism The term "Darwinism" Talk Page comments you would find this comment:

However, even Richard Dawkins (of Oxford U) who has kept using the term, was apparently persuaded by the stushie about a certain movie earlier this year to avoid the term in future. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why he or anyone else would object to me pointing out what he openly acknowledges, one can only guess. I don't know.

Next, I have read the WP:NPOV policy many times. I believe that in this instance you are misapplying it. Perhaps after considering the above you already recognize that. Note please the following two appropriate sections:

Balance - NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. (Emphasis added)

Bias - NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. - (Emphasis added)

This brings me to my final point, Original Research. Again, I have read this WP many times. I have a hard time understanding how citing a well-known book (TBW)in which the author, Richard Dawkins, frequently used the terms in question--evolution and Darwinism--and uses them in a way that is clearly synonymous can be considered Original Research. Apparently you object to "my observation" that they are used "interchangeably". I believe you are using an overly restrictive interpretation of WP:OR. Any reasonable person can see how the words are used. But be that as it may, in the time it took to type "Dawkins Darwinism" in to Google and press enter I was able to find countless other references to Dawkins' use of the two terms. Here are a couple for your consideration:

An interview on July 18, 2008 with Richard Dawkins regarding an upcoming television film entitled, "Dawkins on Darwin" specifically states that his film is about Darwinism.

For example, in his recent book, The God Delusion, Dawkins equates Darwinism with naturalism when when stated, "Darwin's view [was] that all was 'produced by laws acting around us'"

For example, in his recent book, The God Delusion, Dawkins equated Darwinism with naturalism when when stated, "Darwin's view [was] that all was 'produced by laws acting around us'"

[3]

Previously, In the preface to "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."

Again, I realize that your role as an Administrator in WP is voluntary, but I also hope you keep in mind that with authority comes responsibility and that you remember that all editors should be treated as acting in good faith. Thanks! DannyMuse (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. 'A Knight of the Mind' - Dawkins, Darwin, and the Battle of Worldviews
2. http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2881,Richard-Dawkins-slaps-creationists-into-the-primordial-soup,Kate-Muir-Times-Online Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup]
3. Dawkins, Richard, (2006). The God Delusion. Boston, MA. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4