Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)
User:PhilKnight/Archive61 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as PhilKnight/Archive61's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear PhilKnight/Archive61!
Hi there, I have been looking over some of the older cases at WP:MEDCAB, as well as some of the cases that are currently open. I have been here around a month or so, and I was wondering if it was possible to get involved with the Mediation Cabal. Also, if you could give any advice, that would be great :) MacMedtalkstalk19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you decline this user's request to be unblocked when the blocking admin stated that he would be unblocked albeit "with conditions" when he returned? Please review your decision, Kendrick was a valuable editor. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi William, the request I declined indicated he wanted to leave, but also wanted to communicate with ArbCom, so I declined and suggested he send an email. I agree the blocking admin said that if he wanted to return, he could be unblocked, and I'm not objecting to that, nor am I disagreeing that he was a good editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Renaissancee, at the moment there isn't an ongoing edit war, although there is obviously an underlying dispute, so I don't think protection is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MedCab
Hi there, I wanted to get your opinion on something. Should someone come up with a template to "deny" mediation, suggesting that the users take the issue to RfC, WP:3O, and other early dispute resolution measures before requesting mediation? Would that be used, or is it not really polite to deny mediation? Also, my apologies if this should be on Wikipedia Talk:Mediation Cabal. Feel free to move it if you wish. MacMedtalkstalk02:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iravan, the son of Arjuna, is now our 85thgood article. How do we know this? Since last year, more processes have been automated, increasing productivity. Article alerts update the project with what's happening to India-related articles, from copyright violations to featured article candidates.
Currently, 11,085 Indian articles need images. Please improve these pages, especially if you enjoy photography! We look forward to more contributions from you. To get started, go to the noticeboard. »
From the editors…
The last newsletter was written a year ago. In June 2008, Indian Premier League was "hot" on Wikipedia, but the article about this year's IPL has attracted 477 editors, or 53% more than the previous year! Even the number of articles in the scope of our project jumped by a whopping 18,500+ articles in an year. The 3.2-year-old India quiz continues to attract old and new Wikipedians, so join in the fun!
Wikipedians are organizing a meetup in Bangalore on July 4 or 5. If you are interested, head over to the page and add your name! Topics of discussion include Indian language editions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia India.
"While this issue has been resolved, one asks the question – what happens when there is a conflict of opinions? What about a Wikipedia entry on India and Pakistan, or the LTTE and the Tamils? Who can edit? Will the information be true?" writes B. Narasimhan of MiD DAY as deeper implications of the Scientology arbitration case,1 reminding us of the core principles of verifiability and the neutral point of view.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- TinuCherian BOT - 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comic panel rationale
Actually Phil, I think I've got the changes into {{Comic cover rationale}} with minimal disruption. Or is there something specific I'm missing?
I don't understand your above comment, or your last edit summary, but this style of rationale has been widely used for over a year without problems. Given there are several templates in this style, could you explain what you think the problem is? PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The up shot? As it was, the template left the article title as the end source of the material if there was no website involved. It becomes very, very hard to verify, or defend, an "original scan" without that. Even the images with URLs have problems if 1) the link dies, 2) the link is to a "just the image" page, 3) the link is to a "root" page w/o the image, and/or 4) the link has changed content.
That's was the major change. The remaining:
Licensing selection,
Clearing the license and it's auto cat off the template page, and
Forcing the ToC to show lower, if at all
Are minor... and, thinking it over, two of them are quite right as is. The switch should prevent the Licensing section from showing and something is nagging my memory about a "no ToC" magic word.
The way the template is at the moment, it allows for different article names and comic book covers, and I think this could lead to misuse. Also, I don't believe there is a necessity for license selection. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it could be misused, but I can see how the old version can provide false or misleading information. Just as a "for instance" Dick Grayson currently used the cover an issue of Nightwing in the infobox. If the old version of the template had been used to provide the FUR for that file, it would have had the description "Cover of Dick Grayson", something that would be, at best, less than correct.
Yes, the revised version of the template wants the editor to provide more information. But they are supposed to be doing that anyway. That's why the FUR template pieces balk, throw warning, and add maintenance cats if most of the fields are left empty.
As for the licensing... honestly, I'm not sure why it's there at all. As near as I can tell, the templates (cover and panel) exist for one of two reasons:
Quick completing an upload; or
Quick fixing a single use file that has been tagged with a deficit or non-existent FUR.
In the first case, the upload page has a pull down to select the appropriate license. In the later, more often than not there is already a license of some form already there, making one dropped by the template redundant.
The information you want to include could be easily added under a 'summary' heading, so I don't consider that to be a worthwhile reason to modify the template. Misuse could easily occur if editors start using templated rationales for situations where a custom rationale is required, so I disagree about allowing for different article names and comic book covers. Also misuse could easily occur if there is confusion over which license should be used with which template - this approach reduces confusion, so again I don't understand the imperative for making a change. As I've already said, this approach has been used on a whole set of similar templates for over a year, without problems, so I consider your reasoning for making these changes to be mistaken. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...could be easily added under a 'summary' heading..." If it were, I wouldn't be looking at the template as needing to be fixed.
As currently used, the template is being used in lieu of any other information. It is being placed as sufficient, which it is not.
You bring up a good point about the licensing templates. Now, could you eludicate as to what that is even dropped by the template to begin with? Or was it intended to be a "This is good enough to keep the image." fire and forget?
To reduce confusion, as I've already explained. Also, this approach has been used for well over a year on several different templates, and you're the first person to complain. I suggest you create a new template based around {{Logo fur}}. PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Right now the article about Lovebugs is nominated for DYK. But there is some problems. The largest one is the lack of reliable sources.
I have 1 reliable source that could cover at least 80% of the text. But shall i put in the same reference after every sentence again and again and again or is there a better way to do it? Highest Heights (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apo'strophe
I had logged into the account and changed the password. There was no email set to the account. Just to let you know.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed prod from Faux Rock because someone objected to it; now at AfD
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Faux Rock, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux Rock, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atamachat17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where your concern comes from and I did not mean it in any way to be offensive or confusing.
As you have raised this issue, the name derives from the way that you play the piano (by plonking it), and as my pages will mainly be about pianos then I thought that I had chosen the name appropriately.
If you still see this as an unfit name then I will happily change it to a better one.
Well, you could change it so users in the future will not think of your name as disruptive particularly those who live in England. However, your edits are ok, so we know you have good intentions. But it is a confusing and somewhat disruptive name in a way as it is offensive in the British English language. My thoughts, you should change it for the reasons above, but it's up to you. --Brad Polard (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil thanks again for your help. Unfortunately ASA has asked that the blue bar underneath the logo be removed. I cannot figure out how to do it. Can you please help me again? 208.37.160.2 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDuncTalk20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sandwich (album)
According to Wikipedia:Deletion review, I am supposed to contact the admin who deleted a page to discuss that deleted page's restoration. Sandwich (album) is under protection because it had been Repeatedly recreated, and during that time, it was an unsourced future album. Now the album has been released and infomration has been confirmed. I ask that the album please be unprotected and restored. I have a userpage (User:FallenWings47/Sandwich) with information taken directly from the album's booklet to create the new page. The band is notable, as is the album. FallenWings47 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FallenWings47, I've unprotected, and merged the history. However, I recomend you add sources to the user space version before moving it. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}