User talk:PhilKnight/Archive54

List of holy grails listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of holy grails. Since you had some involvement with the List of holy grails redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Yecril (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

previously blocked User:71.230.170.187

Please go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.230.170.187 and change to an indefinite block. Three new vandal posts today [1] --Hjal (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically block IPs indefinitely. I've gone ahead and reblocked for a week. Continuing vandalism will result in increasingly lengthier blocks. –xeno (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hjal, the problem with indefinitely blocking IPs is that it frequently affects other users. I usually give IPs a first block of 48 hours, and then following more vandalism, increase to 1 week, then a month, 3 months, and finally a year. PhilKnight (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wish that there was a very simple way for an editor to call for admin assistance in a case like this, without following an individual back to their user page; perhaps a button on all the upper-level warning templates that just puts out a "come and look at this" call that gets posted on some vandal watch list. But, this worked reasonably well.--Hjal (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parade Magazine Page

Hello:

Parade Magazine has had editors attempt to update factual content that Wikipedia editors have overwritten and called self-promotional.

What can we do to avoid this back and forth and simply post material that is factual, or content that may be anecdotal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should probably be aware of the promotional guideline, and maybe the conflict of interest guideline. Describing your edit as overwritten probably referred to your editing approach, that is instead of just adding content, you removed other editors contributions, and replaced it with your own. My advice is that you should try just adding factual content, and include citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nara period

Hi PhilKnight. Thanks for your recent assistance. However, Nara period is still having vandalism problems, apparently by the same user with a new IP. May I ask that you extend the protection for a longer period? Regards, Bendono (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Inappropriate

This edit is not vandalism, but it is highly inappropriate, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=271877155#surely_Ayn_Rand_is_better_known_as_a_philosopher_than_Chomsky.

But you won't do philosophy because Jimmy Wales doesn't want you to think, therefore you speculate about who is "known" by half-literate morons. Jimmy Wales doesn't want you to think because contrary to what he says in order to take people's money, he founded wikipedia because as an employer of honest waged labor he sucked. He's going to wind up in jail because he's operating a not for profit with a profit making goal and as such he's violating United States tax law

Warrington (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They Are Trying To Delete Ghostly Talk

Well, the Ghostly Talk article is up for deletion again. I have done everything I can and it does not seem to be good enough for some people. Could you please take a look at the Ghostly Talk article and possibly help me on what needs to be added so the article is not deleted. I have added so much to establish notability and it is not good enough for some. Please help. Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Friends Stand United

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Friends Stand United. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wareh (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wareh, thanks for notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Griffiths

Hi, thanks for looking into the vandalism of this article. Do you think it would a a good idea to request the page be protected? Obviously people are reluctant to block the shared IP address and messages on the talk page there have no effect, so maybe this is a better solution? --Shakehandsman (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates that Jane Griffiths is currently employed by the Council of Europe, and the IP resolves to this organisation, so I guess the IP could be her. There is some advice in the BLP policy about dealing with edits by the subject of the article, which says:
However, I understand your concerns, so I've semi-protected for 3 days. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I don't believe the material is problematic at all - the bankruptcy and arrest was widely reported in the press and the material is well sourced. Perhaps the issue is that it doesn't say whether or not she's paid back her taxes now, though if she had done then it generally wouldn't get reported in the press. I certainly haven't been able ti find anything. Anyway, semi-protection should hopefully encourage the editor to create an account, so perhaps it will encourage them to discuss the topic.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82.22.152.203

Hi, thanks for blocking the IP vandal 82.22.152.203. I don't mind people making a "joke" (as the vandal called it) about Arsenal FC, but vandalising encyclopedia pages is not the way to go. Best, Vincent Valentine 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Question about an edit

Hello.May i ask why you did this edit for? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panathinaikos_FC&diff=269186309&oldid=268212454 What was worng with the SVG version of the logo that you had to replace it?

Thanks in advance. 87.203.214.12 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't recall why. Anyway, I've undone my edit. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Scripturalreasoning

Could you please undelete the above page, it has been my understanding that user talk pages are not deleted unless a very good reason if given.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem - he requested his user talk page was deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that u1 doesn't cover the user talk page, and as said above, user talk pages are only deleted in regards to WP:RTV.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, there's the fact that the history of the page needs to be there in case anything needs to be brought up evidence wise, as said, user talk pages are only deleted if a really good reason is given, like RTV.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here, U1 does not apply to user talk pages.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're refusing to undelete the page despite the fact that user talk pages are not deleted, except in the manner of RTV? The user talk page needs to be there because it may contain evidence in regards to this editor editing in a conflict of interest, or in the manner they may have said things there that others may have referred to in discussions. It is a matter of consensus that user talk pages are not deleted unless RTV is invocted(this computer doesn't have auto-spell check), so given that user talk pages do not fall under csd u1, why are you adamantly refusing to undelete it?— Dædαlus Contribs 00:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, given that this user has threatend to edit against policy, I do not see under what reasoning the talk page should ever be deleted.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daedalus, please stop posting on my talk page, you've made a request, I've said 'no', so the discussion is over. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe here, the discussion is over, but I will be taking this up elsewhere, as user talk pages are not deleted under U1 of WP:CSD.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you've never really said no, until of course the above post. It isn't that I've made a request, it's that I've noted you've done something against policy, and that it should be reverted, given this user's history with wikipedia.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, Phil, I did not see this discussion. I had already temporarily undeleted the talk page, the user seems to want to invoke RTV but there are disputes in at least three places currently referring back to that talk page. It was disingenuous of the user not to note that he is involved in conflict of interest and spamming disputes - actually I do not believe for one moment that we have seen the last of him. I did this before I ever saw Daedalus' comments on it, I was looking for responses to some comments made at the user's talk page as part of the discussion of scriptural reasoning. If he has genuinely gone (which I hope he has) then it can be nuked at the end of the AfD debate. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, thanks for notifying me. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mills in 1950 etc

Thanks for the assistance. I haven´t gone away, its just thjat this whole area is absorbing more and more time. I have an email in at Courtaulds- no reply as of this moment. More importantly I have been working on various articles around the subject and making an infobox so mills can have their own pages. I took Regent mill Failsworth as test data as it is well documented and standing- though the mill is standing the chimney isn´t. So even in such a simple case we are left with the 1950 image as the only one available. And as I think we have said I am only interested in images of working mill- not ones that have been convertted out of cotton spinning.I have on order a reference book that may give more clues. Geograph do have some good images by enthusiast that need to be investigated. More later no doubt. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I can't see any evidence that you have been following the debate on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content where I have been discussing these images individually, and as part of the page List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited, this has spilled over onto my talk page, in response to conversation with User:Hammersoft. I have now divided the issues into five categories:

  1. Does this page fall within the guidelines set down, to which I am convinced it does.
  2. The process of dealing with an unusual resource such as this.
  3. The guidelines and the way they are laid out
  4. how warnings and necessary deletions should should be effected.
  5. How the fair use team can assist in gathering and sanctioning material.

The validity of each of the 53 images was discussed under 1.

I thought about this for about two years before uploading each of these unique images as a gift, and stimulus to any editor working on the Growth of Manchester and thus the economic development of the Empire, any editor working in industrial architecture and particularly P.S.Stott and his ilk, anyone working on the economic policy and how one pulls a society out of recession by forming quasi governmental companies to rationalise a manufacturing industry as a alternative to full nationalisation.

The point of contention has been the de minimis use images - and the how this should be interpreted for a list. While agreeing that the practice should be deprecated, no other method of proceeding has been proposed if Courtaulds UK fails to accept that it is the inherited copyright owner of LCC images and will release them as PD. If you follow back en:wiki policy to the foundation policy you will find as I did that the policy has not been implemented unless it can be demonstrated that images must be treated on a case by case basis. Enough of that.

Hardly the image needed to illustrate the The West Pier, Britain's only Grade 1 listed pier, built between 1863-1866, to the designs of Eugenius Birch, or seaside music halls.

I was concerned that other images existed of each mill but it is not that simple. Each of this images represents an image of a working cotton mill- by 1968 none of them were working mills, in many case the hulk of the main building was converted into warehousing but it was no longer a mill. The engine house is often gone and a gentleman called Blaster Bates destroyed most of the chimneys, they just do not look like a working mill anymore. In the same way that I would not consider my image of the West pier adequately illustrated the pier architecture.

In good faith, you have made several deletions of working mills that have valid FairUse statements claiming that they are not. Would you like to re-evaluate, and reverse your actions. If you still reach the same conclusion can you give some detail as to the logic.

But this is not the way I would have preferred to have operated, What I would like to see is a stronger message on Wikipedia:Non-free_content in the form of a in a nutshell message. Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates has a quick howto- we could have a quick how-not to. This could reduce the contributions by the 'fools and bairns'. Secondly, I would like to see a procedure where a experienced editor could submit a proposal in advance where he is sure that there may be controversy, and get a ticket of approval that could be attached to an image, so folks like yourself would know that this was a considered act not a capricious one. This could white list images so that bots ignore them.

The current system leads to a lot of time being wasted, incredible bad feeling and I believe the loss of many editors who just don't like the conflict, if there is an approved way of contributing- then it makes it a lot easier to zap the dross.

Best wishes Clem. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClemRutter, I've restored the deleted images, and listed them at files for deletion. Also, I agree the current rules for images are overly complex. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting CollegeHumor screenshot

why did you do that???

It was tagged on 9 February 2009 by STBotI as having no valid rationale, and deleted 12 days later. Suggest you have a look at the non-free policy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TMG version history

Please do not just say "Trim" and remove the link to the tmg history.. gioto (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good block

Cookies!
Thanks for blocking Tasudrty, and for all the other work you do as a WikiAdmin. Enjoy your well-deserved cookies.


A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problem

I might be in the wrong here so I thought I would ask. Could you look at these edits [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and the pattern continues, as well as the related talk page discussion here. I have reverted most if not all of them, and I am likely as guilty as edit-warring, but it is a problem this daily removal of information and pointing to an imaginary consensus for it. The information is long standing and had not been in any serious dispute prior to this recent spate of removals. Other sections are also being substantially modified or reduced on a daily basis. Let me know if I am wrong here and I'll just let it go, but I thought I would ask another set of eyes. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy, I've notified him of the ArbCom restrictions. There is thread here about the notification. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for joining the rush

and helping to clear out my pictures of the work of Luis Jimenez (sculptor). Though I was both photographer and poster it is interesting to see that it took three concerned citizens to get them out. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of Kuwaiti companies

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Kuwaiti companies. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to proceed?

Hi Phil,

I've been having a discussion with a WP user for several weeks now, after he objected to an edit I made. I would like to apply for mediation, and as this is the first time would like to know how best to proceed.

We have been dialoguing, I have been following his requests, including soliciting a Third Opinion and posting an open question on the article's talk page, but remain with no answer to my requests, as summarized at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#More_about_the_Peanut_Allergy_article_process and earlier on that page.

Thanks for your assistance.Wikiabilly (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering.

Excuse me, But I was doing the NAMES project AIDS memorial quilt wikipedia page for a history class in high school, and after spending many hours working on it, I came back to find that you had undone everything that I had worked on. I was just wondering if there was a reason you had deleted that. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiskathryn (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexiskathryn, sorry about that, I reverted in order to remove the file:example.jpg, however I should have just removed the image. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel enforcement

Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that Infoboxes must burn in Hell

Hello PhilKnight, Thank you for sending me notification about Palestine-Israel enforcement. I've read it carefully. Initially I've created my account to improve quality of Apache Tomcat article. I'm new to Wikipedia, but generally in love with Internet technology.

  • Let me know why I was among notified? Is it part of enforcement process?
  • Do you have suggestions for improving my editing skills?
  • Could I continue to contrib to Palestine-Israel articles?

Thank you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgadaUrbanit,
  • You were notified following this post which contained 4 diffs. Based on those diffs, I thought it was sufficient to justify notifying you of the restrictions.
    • Notifying you of the existence of ArbCom restrictions is prerequisite for applying any sanctions. How the sanctions operate is explained here.
  • I'd suggest spending more time working towards a consensus on the talk page, and less time reverting.
  • Yes, certainly.
PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. OK, I see what you mean. Thank you for explaining. My goal is improving Wikipedia encyclopedic value. I make an effort to reach compromise and consensous in very hot issues. I'm pretty verbose on talk page and do not rush any revert. I try not to do undiscussed changes and follow WP:BRD process recommendations. I consult with Nableezy about Wikipedia etiquette a lot :). Maybe you need to take a look at Nableezy contrib pattern. Tell me if you see any evidence to edit warring. I also would like to note that I enjoy discussion with Nableezy and just awarded him civility barnstar. Your opinion is important to me. Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I come hoping to bring to your attention, another disruptive behavioral pattern by AgadaUrbanit in the named article above. This is the discussion we had on this matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Belligerents. Agada continues to make this edit, even after discussion.

Agada first argued, as you can see, that Governance of the Gaza Strip was an official office in Gaza, and that it was to be included as the Belligerent in the Infobox. It was explained to Agada, that the title was merely the title of the article itself, and that it held no official value in this conflict itself(basically, that it was not meant to replace Gaza or Gaza Strip as belligerent). The main argument that was brought up by various editors, was that as we mention Israel as a Belligerent, we must also name Gaza(or Gaza Strip) as belligerent because there is no difference between them as looked from Wikipedia's perspective. Of course, what Agada alludes to, is to Israel's POV that it is not waging war against the 'people' of Gaza, but against Hamas. In here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#.5BOT.5D_Palestine-Israel_enforcement I've told Agada that we must make certain judgment calls from Wikipedia's POV and not by one of the involved parties. If you yourself have certain points that would like to be clarified, I hope you take a few minutes and read the discussion from the 1st link, I assure you that everything was covered in there on this topic. Thank you. Cryptonio (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cryptonio, nice to see you again. I just noticed that you finally enabled your talk page. Thank you, it will help discussions. How come Belligerents change, for instance:
And I was already explained that 5 reverts in the row, could be counted as single one for 3RR purposes :) This is Olympic Games of Fast Reverts and not Wikipedia BRD process. In the end I see arguments here about persons (Mr FG Superman has a hidden identity! He's really Bicycle Repair Man) and not about facts. What should I, as Wikipedia editor, do in such case? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou :)

Hi Phil, I've been away from WP for quite a few months due to health problems... what a lovely surprise to come back and find you'd awarded me a barnstar for diligence! Dakinijones (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment

I can see where you're coming from, and that's not my intention. About two months ago a related issue came up when he reviewed one of his own userblocks. I was totally uninvolved with that and intervened in no way, but it raised serious concerns among other volunteers. There are two separate questions: is the action itself correct, and has he blurred an ethical line between action and review? In the instance before, and perhaps in this instance as well, the action itself was correct. But that doesn't make it proper to review one's own actions. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query on block

Hello. Just curious, but why did you block 82.24.215.21 (talk · contribs · block log)? Not only was the IP never warned past a level two warning, but the IP's last edit [7] took place 24 hours before that level two warning was issued [8]. Please note that I am not complaining, as I am genuinely curious. Regardless, I follow a 0RR for the actions of my fellow admins, and defer the issue to your good judgment. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had an EC trying to ask the same question. I thought maybe there was some secret behind-the-scenes thing that we average editors don't see. I was looking for some insight. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kralizec and Mufka, according to Whois the IP is assigned, so I think a short block for repeated vandalism is justifiable. However, if you want to modify the block, that's ok with me. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not follow you. Are you saying that if an IP address is assigned, we now block even inactive IPs after they have received just a single level one warning? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a situation where a good faith editor, in this case Grayme, is getting frustrated by a vandal only account (whether IP or logged in) I'm inclined to block the vandal. Obviously, I'd exercise caution if the account was shared, however, in cases such as this, I'm inclined to ignore all the rules and issue a short block. As I've already said, if you want to unblock that's ok with me. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now, I had not realized this was an IAR block. Regardless of it being an out-of-process block, I have no intention of changing it; as I said before, I follow a 0RR for the actions of my fellow admins. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]