User talk:PhilKnight/Archive55

Why was Xmortis deleted?

I would like to know why "Xmortis" was deleted as a non-notable event in Cambridge, MA. The event was created after Hell which was a very notable goth night at "Manray" nightclub in Cambridge, MA. Xmortis continues to this day. Many articles have been written that reference Xmortis. Xmortis creators had a hand in creating the Miss Gothic Massachusetts competition in Cambridge. What else needs to be done to prove that Xmortis is worthy of an entry?

morbidiqua@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.158 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following your request, I've restored the article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patrick Delahanty

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patrick Delahanty, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Delahanty (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion question

Why was File:12thManStatue.JPG deleted? No notice, that I saw, was given and the rationale is a bit vague. Simply correcting the fair use rationale could fix the problem. Please explain. — BQZip01 — talk 04:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BQZip01, a disputed fair use tag was added by Angr on 17 February, which indicated that "not one of the articles where this image is used has any critical commentary about this statue itself. It is used merely for decoration and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the articles; it thus fails WP:NFCC#8 in all articles where it is used." PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't disagree more. Each one of the articles (especially the 12th Man article) had text describing and asserting the importance of the statue. The image itself was not copyrighted, but the subject certainly was. The only thing I ask is that you restore the image and submit it to WP:IfD. — BQZip01 — talk 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restored and listed at WP:FFD. PhilKnight (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I ask. Thanks! — BQZip01 — talk 08:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um...you've orphaned the image. Could you please go back and restore the image on the appropriate pages? If it is orphaned, it is also eligible for deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 68.218.209.5

I know it's an IP address. I guess this should not be about punishment or retribution. But 31 hours as a suspension for that vitriol? Seems you have been merciful in the extreme. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Hi 7&6=thirteen, the block was by Kralizec! the merciful. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go take it up with the author. Thanks. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

J+S ArbCom case

Hi Phil, (cc'd to ChrisO)

In the upcoming J+S ArbCom case, I'm worried Elonka's limited topic ban will be used again to cast undue doubt on my conduct. Since 1) Elonka confirmed it was based on a misunderstanding on her part and 2) she promised to lift or at least reduce it after one week, then forgot about it and went on a Wikibreak, and 3) the stated infraction was first changed, then never specified beyond a vague "based on the recent pattern of reverts, and working your way through several Israel-Palestine articles and making Samaria-related reverts", and 4) the only two Samaria-related reverts I had made in the preceding week [1] were in order to fix problems with claims that were either unsourced [2] or sourced exclusively with highly partisan refs [3], I wonder if and where I can appeal to have the ban lifted? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MeteorMaker, according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions - the WP:AE noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try that. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Success! :) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:MeteorMaker_appeals_for_unbanning MeteorMaker (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank You

Thank you for stopping the annoying user who was vandalising my user and talk pages, Mclarenaustralia (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your advice, actually I am having some troubles as some think that I am being disruptive, while as a matter of fact all what i am trying to do is to balance articles related to the Arab-israeli conflict. I will take your advise into consideration as I don't want anyone to think I am here to disrupt. Yamanam (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Source

No source is provided for this image. Why didn't you delete it? --Wayiran (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wayiran, it was tagged as vandalism, which it doesn't appear to be. I'll list the image at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please do it. --Wayiran (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Sean O'Donnell information deleted?

The information on Sean O'Donnell and pictures were all found on various sites and are valid. Please put them back.

Smcmod (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Smcmod[reply]

The images don't appear to comply with the non-free policy. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the O'Donnell_Dog picture does not comply with the copyright policy for Wikipedia, is the other picture and information that goes along with it OK to keep in the page? Smcmod (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)User:Smcmod[reply]

Peanut Allergy article edit

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your reply.

I did read the WP CoI policy and, I believe, exercise extreme caution, while explaining that there is minimal room for CoI here since there are only 3 scientific peanut allergy books on the market, and I list them all, mine last - so it's not like I'm making an arbitrary selection. (See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Ronz#Peanut_Allergy_article.2C_external_links) Does that make sense to you?

That's for the link to my book, which is really a minor issue at this point.

The bigger issues are:

  • the existing peanut allergy links are not representative of what's out there and don't give the reader better info than what's in the WP article. (See User_talk:Ronz and Talk:Peanut_Allergy for explanation) Given the years of work I have done on this topic, the links I propose to 2 books (if we drop mine) and 5 national allergy organizations, are much more useful and comprehensive. Would they be acceptable in your view?
  • Ronz has not been transparent - particularly about his credentials on the topic of peanut allergy - and this seems contrary to the spirit of WP and the public good. Why block my proposed edit while allowing (in the meantime) someone else to add a personal link to the peanut allergy page? Why stay with existing content if there's no justification of its authors' credentials? I believe I've answered his questions, followed his instructions, and so on.

Thanks for your input.Wikiabilly (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy in Love with Beyonce

Crazy in Love with Beyonce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He only edits about once a month (under that ID anyway), so I don't know if a 48 hour block will do anything, but it's worth a try. He's on my to-be-watched list, anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Any chance of your input here? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auchinleck Talbot

Hi Phil, Can you please leave the modified text to reference of Auchinleck Talbot?

Regards Luddo :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.237.110 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Epstein Entry

I have corrected the entry to give the full picture of Mr. Epstein's work. His primary work is as a familiar essayist and his comments about homosexuality in your entry are taken out of context and given too much weight for a writer of his calibre and with his extensive list of works. For the record he was remarking in that essay that his many friends who were gay at that time (1970) seemed troubled and burdened by the weight of what was then a reality that isolated and ostracized those who lived it with it and that he wished, for that reason, that this burden be lifted from his friends and others. A small group of radical gay activist have tried to make this the core of his writing but the truth is that it was the literary equivalent of an offhand remark. If you wish to leave it in, I suggest that you qualify it as I have done and then explain what his writing has mostly been about. This would be a service to potentially interested readers and would balance the presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.131.144 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

yes thanks for not making that I.P ban on my old user, but not for blocking my account, that was not nice :(. Random.Person219 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for reverting edits?

You reverted my edits on Dubai College. Not disputing, I'm just wondering what i did against the rules.

Thanks bigforrap (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bigforrap, thanks for prompting me on this, it's because there's no proof that the copyright holder of the photographs agreed to license it under the given licenses. PhilKnight (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:212.227.114.140

Hello
I see you blocked an IP address (212.227.114.140 (talk) in December for insulting behaviour. Can I suggest it may need doing it again, sometime soon? Can you also tell me if there is anywhere I should be reporting breaches of the guidelines on personal attacks? I don’t really know what else to do other than tell him it’s a bad idea. Swanny18 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

Re. Hi Redking7, I've created your statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyRedking7, hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on making that posting. When I saw something like a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs pyramid on that page, I concluded I would have to read an awful lot of waffle before I could understand what I needed to click to make my posting where it should be. My advice to those running the page - simplify it and keep it short. No need for a pyramid, thats for sure. Thanks again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another missed sock...

丁桓蘊 (talk · contribs). Thanks!  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doulos Christos. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nye Lavalle Post

Any suggestions on how we can help make this less advert. Some of his friends and me, his ex gf, want to do a good job and get the page right. He's done a lot of good for a lot of people and the banks are attacking him and his family and we want to set the record straight for the media and others who work with him. Funny, he once worked with Blue Ribbon Sports in NIKE's formative years. Any guidance or help would be appreciated!

Kris

KrissyPope (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krissy, I've removed a sentence, and explained why on the talk page. Hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ogden Welding edit

Now I know that there was no image and that the gallery did not belong but I dont know why you got rid of all of my references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanky5 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clanky5, yes I agree, I shouldn't have removed the references. My bad. PhilKnight (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"see what you know"

Yes, you are right I should have checked the refs myself then. I'm not really perfect any more than anyone else here, & I do not object to being reminded of it. DGG (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding Edit War on Allenby Bridge Article

I took out an unsourced sentance in the article that certainly did not reflect a NPOV. It was, if anything, an editorial. I made a comment on the talk page explaining what I did and why. The change was reverted. I asked in the appropriate part of the talk page why my change was reverted. I also asked the person on his/her talk page. I received no response. I am new to Wikipedia so I do not yet havea good grasp on the procedures involved in dealing with a non-responsive editor. Am I missing a means of dealing with him/her? If not, what is my next step? Westeast (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Westeast, the usual method of dealing with situations like this to add a {{fact}} tag to the unsourced sentence, and give the other editor 24 hours to find a reference before removing it again. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schiaparelli collection

You've just deleted a beautiful image (and valuable contribution to the project). Bad form!! ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pietru, while the image may be beautiful, it wasn't compliant with item 3a of the Non-free policy, which requires minimal usage. In particular, multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Although it was hardly multiple; no other fashion shots of her work exist on Wikipedia/the commons. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:IECOLL/P

Just making sure that you didn't miss the tip to put WT:IECOLL/P on your watchlist on my welcome message of last month. — Sebastian 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]