Is a user supposed to be able to blank his own talk page? I ask because I was looking into a COI issue and found nothing at User talk:71.87.21.195, which initially had me fooled into thinking this IP hadn't had any issues in the past. But then I noticed he had removed his own history, including notice of a block you placed on him. Rees11 (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MASH AfDs
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider each article, rather than run a cut n paste on each as others have done. (I assume that's what you're doing based on your slower vote editing and your going back on one to edit a merge option in.) Good to have others also looking at each case. ThuranX (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bigjohn303030
I noticed you blocked the guy (of course), but wouldn't it be better to also delete that userpage? There's some pretty nasty stuff in the history. Or is that against policy? Regs, Yintaɳ 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FlyingToaster Barnstar Hello PhilKnight! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster
Armenia-Azerbaijan restriction
I'm currently reading the arbitration page which you put me under. Meanwhile I have a question, what was the action you took on the opposing side? --76.93.86.242 (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering if I could volunteer to take a case and mediate it? I kind of need a little instruction, because I've never done this before.
The actual process, so I just sit and read through all of the evidence and then decide who punished (informally of course) or what goes down?
Thanks, and hopefully I won't screw up, if I do get it. :3
Renaissancee(talk)01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've looked through a few of your current cases as well as older cases, and I'm wonder if I could take this case. I didn't know if I needed approval from coordinators or what, so I'll be waiting for your response. :)
Hi, I was wondering about the deletion of the Zachary's Pizza page. The restaurant is well known in the Bay Area, but has received a lot of national attention too. The 2009 Bay Area Zagat called Zachary's the Most Popular Pizza Restaurant and 26th Most Popular Restaurant in SF Bay Area. In addition, here are a couple examples of national attention they've received:
New York Times articleTravel Channel segment
I please ask you to reconsider the deletion of the Zachary's page. Thanks, and I'd be happy to cite further articles/references if necessary.
98.164.216.129 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted following this discussion. It wasn't so much my decision to delete, instead it was more my assessment of the consensus of the discussion. Given how the consensus was very clearly to delete the article, it isn't within my remit to overturn the decision. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the arguments made in favor of deletion are arbitrary and unfounded, especially the original proposal for deletion made by User:Ecoleetage. He argues that Zachary's "very occasionally turns up in food and travel media." This is not the case. Zachary's appears in many forms of travel media, as I cited in my previous post. He also states, "I am not convinced of its notability (though maybe I could change my mind if Zachary sends over a pepperoni and mushroom pie)." This is a personal opinion with no factual basis. The statement also alludes to, joking or not, a form of bribery--his opinion might be swayed if Zachary's sends him pizza. In addition, this user has been banned from Wikipedia, for threatening someone that was opposed to him.
Several of the other arguments build on his weak "not notable" claim. Others mention that it that the page is advertising. I know I saw the Zachary's Pizza page a couple years back, but I don't remember if it read or looked like an advertisement. Is there a way to see what it looked like before? At any rate, even if it did, isn't that more of grounds for revision rather than deletion? Other Bay Area restaurants like Cheese Board Collective still have Wikipedia pages. 98.164.216.129 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~~
Well, back to the office it is...
Editing?
Hi, I am extremely new to Wikipedia, I only joined today. i just wrote my first article on the Irish red squirrel and one minute later I think you recommended it to be merged with the page for the Red Squirrel. The reason I'm writing is because I just don't really know what you did but thanks for the help anyway. I was just shocked to see it changed within a minute!! Anyway I read your page and you're involved with Irish pages?? I don't know how, but could I join or something?? Thanks for your help. TheIrishVampire (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the deletion discussed here should stand? Wasn't sure if you agreed, disagreed, or just commented. Aervanth (the closer) said you were not arguing for undeletion. Please reply here or here.--67.169.82.244 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Aervanth is correct in saying that I wasn't arguing for undeletion. Several editors endorsed the deletion, so I agree the close represented the consensus of the discussion. However, I think it's possible we're taking an overly cautious approach in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in an ongoing dispute with another editor regarding the Plantation of Ulster wikipedia page and more specifically the "Plantation in Operation" section. I'm new to wikipedia so am not sure how everything works but I do have substantial knowledge of the history. I have kept updates on the discussion page explaining what I have been doing.
I rewrote the section on the "Plantation in Operation" providing detailed and extensive references including book page numbers. These references were directly related to claims made in the section.
Another user "Domer" has been changing the references. Firstly during the course of adding some information he moved at least one reference to a sentence to which it was not related. I fixed this change. He then condensed the various references to one link at the end of each sentence, without explaining on the discussion page what had been done. I (new to wiki) thought that the references had been deleted and posted such on the discussion page and reverted the page back to the previous uncondensed references.
"Domer" then reverted it back to the condensed references and still did not explain what he had done, saying only that the references had not been deleted. On closer examination I found out that the references had been condensed but also found that again numerous references had been moved to the end of a sentence to which they bore no relation. I posted the details of this on the discussion page under "references".
"Domer" then suggested I might be synthesising sources and provided me with a link to wikipedia guidelines regarding synthesising of sources which states, "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." This is what I have done throughout the section. I have provided a detailed explanation of this on the discussion page under "References". Uncondensed sources make this clear and therefore better relate to wikipedia guidelines than condensed sources.
The condensed sources leave the section and references open to misrepresentaion. My original uncondensed sources directly related to specific claims made in sentences that sometimes include two or three claims. In no case have I ever, "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Each conclusion I have reached has been directly attributable to a source, or more usually more than one source.
I would appreciate help in this matter. I would like to see the section returned to my version with uncondensed references.
On 20 December 2008, you edit protected the article Hank Green, so that it would always redirect to John Green (author). I don't doubt your reasoning behind this. I understand that, at the time, the information provided suggested that Hank Green's notability was not worthwhile enough to warrant the maintenance of the Hank Green article.
However, I believe that, in six months' time, Hank Green has managed more notable achievements. I'll repost my reply to the Talk:Hank Green page here in order to better emphasize my point.
Call for the Reopening for the Hank Green Page
I believe that there is sufficient notable information on Hank Green to warrant the reopening of his page. I still don't fully understand why, if the information was insufficient, Hank Green's page wasn't simply marked as "stub". The redirection to "John Green (author)" is invaluable to those looking to learn more about Hank Green, because the article only mentions Hank Green in swift passing.
It seems Hank Green's standalone "notability" has also been called into question. First, I will mention his incredibly large following on the video sharing website "YouTube" (which, by the way, is not as isolated a community as some believe). It is unfair to understate the value of his "Project for Awesome" (P4A), which encourages people to spread the word on worthy charities through the internet. This project has encouraged donations to hundreds of charities.
Hank Green is the sole founder of EcoGeek, which (along with its sister companies Carectomy, Envirovore, and Envirowonk) is a large information blog, filled with articles on all things environmentally-friendly. It is "the leading blog on green science and technology", even, according to The Nature Conservancy. EcoGeek has been nominated for a plethora of awards as well. Also, notably, he was a writer for Mental_floss. This is an accomplishment within itself.
These are all things that Hank Green had achieved as of 20 December 2008, and yet, it seems not to be accepted enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (not even a "stub"!), which is, I think, outrageous. Fortunately, he has achieved much more, as of 28 May 2009. So, in addition to the following list:
- Conceiver of the "Project for Awesome", a project dedicated to informing individuals of charities in need of financial support
- Founder, runner, and editor of EcoGeek.com, which has been heralded as the "leading blog on green science and technology"
- Co-initiator of the Brotherhood 2.0 Project, which remain among of the most viewed videos of all time on YouTube
- One of several writers for EcoGeek.com
Hank Green has accomplished even more. He has now co-founded a record company, DFTBA Records, which has released his album "So Jokes". "So Jokes" entered the Billboard's Top 20 in February 2009 for Top Revenue Generating albums sold through paid downloads and paid streams. He has been on tour, the Tour de Nerdfighters, and has had several concerts. He was released music videos for his singles "It All Makes Sense At The End" and "DFTBA".
And let's go back to the whole "DFTBA Records" thing for a moment: the record company has signed more than fifteen artists to its label (including Chameleon Circuit, Dave Days, Julia Nunes, Alan Lastufka, Tom Milsom, and Charlie McDonnel). It has its own forum for discussion of its artists (which is more than I can say for many, much more prominent, record companies), a radio show, and a "street team".
So, he's a record producer, singer/songwriter, environmentalist, and vlogger? Well, that seems pretty "notable" to me.
The post in its original context can be viewed here, at Talk:Hank_Green.
I think that Hank Green's substantiality should be reviewed. I believe his discography, record company highlights, tour history, concert history, and information on both DFTBA Records and EcoGeek.com is sufficient for the reopening of the Hank Green article (not to mention Nerdfighters, Brotherhood 2.0, the Project for Awesome, or Mental_floss). I will work with members of the Wikipedia community that I know will not make a mockery of the article by plaguing it with untrue statements like "he is made of awesome" (which seemed to have been a problem in earlier versions of the article). I hope that, upon sight of this article, Hank Green will become unsalted. As the articles original salter, I'd really like your cooperation in this matter. I'd truly appreciate it.
I know that that is the procedure for the review of deletions. However, I incorrectly believed that Hank Green was not deleted. I thought that it was simply closed so that only administrators could modify it, and a redirection to John Green (author) was placed on it. I was confused on this matter because the history of Hank Green makes no mention of a deletion. As such, I thought you were the go-see guy to get this matter resolved. Sorry to bother you. --Madithekilljoy (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Mohamed ElBaradei has currently been protected for around a month. The page has gone through a third opinion, an RfC, multiple comments on noticeboards, and has lost a mediator.
Could you please help coordinate a mediation or suggest a way forward?
I'm new to Wikipedia...Why was the bio completely removed? Wouldn't this be information in an Encyclopedia about the career? Jussy Bjorling's page has similar information as do other artists. Thank you for explaining.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodram (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just noticed that you've deleted my page. I'd really like it back if possible! The charity I work for owns the copyright to the text that you believe I infringed. Let me know your thoughts.
No prob. I've reverted the edit though I have reimplemented the few grammar errors. The rest was all unsourced stuff and OR that was deliberately removed as unverifiable when I redid the article. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 23:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Phil, any reason in particular for the disclaimer after your block? Did you feel that it was controversial in any way? decltype (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
