User talk:PhilKnight/Archive77

Grey_Knights

The page you deleted back in 2008 - can it just be a redirect that leads to Psyker#Grey_Knights? Would have done it but it is create-protected. Thought you'd be the best admin to ask. ☭ мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 11:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Muchly ☭ мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 03:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Hi PhilKnight, because I responded to your edit I do not believe it is a good idea to change it like that. I believe,if you have changed your mind, it is better to cross out some of it versus simply removing part of your comment. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbz1, I've restored and indicated that I'm not intending to go ahead with the equal topic bans. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NickCT (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy withdrew his complaint

I don't get it. You write to me and ask me to replace tags in order to avoid sanctions. I immediately comply. Nableezy withdraws his complaint. The case is closed. And now you notify me of restrictions on my editing. I will not abide by any restrictions imposed in this unfair and highly irregular action on your part. All the more so when Nableezy has just gotten off scot free, ONCE AGAIN. --Geewhiz (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you were given a mild sanction, instead of no sanction, but that said, I voluntarily edit on a 1RR basis, and explain my reverts, so I don't consider your restrictions to be draconian. Also, of course, Nableezy has a similar restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not OK. It deviates from Wikipedia procedure and if you want others to comply with the "rules," administrators should be doing the same. To treat me otherwise is a clear showing of bias. Nableezy has asked that his withdrawal be respected. Also, for some reason, much of the discussion on my talk page was struck through and removed. I would like to know why. I have not been online since yesterday.--Geewhiz (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAQ mediation

Phil, smatprt has been topic banned for a year from all Shakespeare-related articles and discussion. What is the procedure now for the mediation? Do you take him off the involved users list? If at all possible I would like to press for a conclusion on this, since it's a policy matter that needs to be clarified. There are two other opposing disputants beside Smatprt. I doubt it will take much time now that the main contention has been resolved. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, thanks for letting me know, I've put a note on the MedCom page about the topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil has this mediation's shelf life expired? I don't see any clamour from either side. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, I've closed the case. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried about pointless stuff

in the IP area, as you wrote recently on AE, then perhaps you can knock some sense into the COI dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy; search for "COI" there. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-P cases at AE

Hello Phil. In your comment on WP:AE#Nableezy case, you said "However, I'm concerned there seems to be a general deterioration in the I-P editing, such as pointless edit warring over tags from editors who've in the past have edited far more constructively."

In this particular case, I was disappointed that the comments submitted by the involved editors did not shed much light on what admins should do. They were like a ritual exchange of blows between the two factions.

If we are going to be getting a steady stream of I-P cases, maybe the admins should develop an overall strategy. Possibly an increased use of article 1RRs? So that every time somebody complained at AE about warring on an article, we would automatically put the article itself on 1RR for three months? That would at least damp down the wars between the 1RR-restricted people and the others.

Another option would be to crank the cases through very fast, and close them as though they had been filed at WP:AN3. In many cases this would mean slapping on full protection.

Would be interested in any other ideas you may have for dealing with I-P. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, thanks for your thoughtful note. I think we need to do something as the situation is deteriorating. What you're suggesting would be ok. Also, I think we could look at the approaches taken in regard to Ireland, where the entire set of articles were placed under 1RR, and Sri Lanka, where a list of active editors were restricted to 1RR. I've set up a page for centralized discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks Phil. Nishidani (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your suggestions

Concerning your suggestions: [1]

I have a suggestion of my own, there has for a long time now been many problems with obvious socks showing up, either through SPAs or IPs, joining edit wars, pov pushing, contentious edits etc.

Because of this, my suggestion is that all articles that touches the A-I conflict should be locked down from IPs and "normal" accounts. Then, there should be some kind of "clearance", for example: if a registered account would like to edit within the A-I conflict, he would have to edit in accordance with a neutral point of view. He would also have to have had his account for at least 3 months and made at least 200 edits. He would also have to reply to some questions before the "clearance", for example: "Is the Tomb of Rachel in the West Bank or Israel?", and depending on the answer, this account would then be allowed, or not allowed to edit within the A-I conflict articles. If for example a "cleared" editor starts pov pushing, for example: replacing a map of the West Bank, with a map of Israel, for a location/article in the West Bank, then this account would loose his "clearance" and be locked out of all A-I articles.

And part of this suggestion that I have, there should also be many rules or guidelines that all the "cleared" editors must follow, for example: Wikipedia:WESTBANK, but there should be many more of these for different types of disputes within the A-I conflict.

What do you say? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly, POV pushing proposal! You should be the first one to be topic banned for this proposal alone.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think reversing the problem is a worthwhile suggestion. Rather than saying, where's the evidence this user should be banned? We should be saying, where's the evidence this user should be allowed to continue to edit? We already have a list of editors notified of WP:ARBPIA, and in borderline cases, we could ask a few questions before deciding. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karrine Steffans

Hello Phil. Did you see this article published by AALBC.com? I don't think the redirect was a blatant personal attack. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vejvančický, thanks for explaining. The article you've linked to is enough to justify a discussion, so I've restored. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Here is another link. For adults only :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

Hi Phil, may I please ask you to accept my apology for my post on AN/I? I was doing a few things at once, and ... it just happened. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbz1, no problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Edwards

Hi Phil. On the 16 February 2010 you deleted the page "Dylan Edwards" ‎ citing (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) as the reason. Well, since the release of the BBC 2 comedy 'Shelf Stackers' which saw Dylan in the lead role as 'Fitzy' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vj45n#synopsis), Dylan's acting Career has grown more and more and there is now an increasing fan base who are combing the net for information on him. He has recently filmed episodes for season 2 of E4's Bafta winning series 'Misfits' and for Channel 4's multi award winning comedy 'Peep Show'. He also made a recent appearance on the live BBC chat show - 5:19 show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/videos/6e4fcef.shtml). There is more in the pipeline - including the lead role in a new TV series called 'Goths' written by Jack Thorne and directed by Jeremy Webb. For more information check out his agents website - http://unitedagents.co.uk/dylan-edwards. Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.145.53 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've unprotected the page, so you can recreate the article if you want. However, you should be aware of the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Edwards (Actor). My suggestion would be to register an account create a page in userspace, and then move the article out of userspace when you're confident the objections have been overcome. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Fischer

Could you userify that deleted expired prod article for me? I think notability can be shown with some editing work. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milowent, I've restored and moved the page to User:Milowent/Bryan Fischer. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, sir!--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wookie block

hi again phil, wanted to start out by saying i think we got off on the wrong foot and i apologize (again) for the terseness in my comments to you on my talk page; i hope you can appreciate i was really just frustrated with the situation. of the editors who argued against my appeal, you were the only one who i think can safely be classified as not having ulterior motives or simply failing to understand the intention of my comments. Malik Shabazz (the only other admin to support the block) has a history of cooperation with Nableezy; a user many others would describe as difficult to work with (when you disagree with him anyway). and the user VsevolodKrolikov seemed unable to understand the difference between the words "affinity" and "affiliation", trying to insist that i had accused nableezy of being employed by hamas or something along those lines. also, in the original conversation which led to the block, vsevolod took issue with my supposed personal attack, but when nableezy called me an idiot he had no problem with that, even going so far as to use nableezy's direct personal attack as a point to defend him.

in regards to the fairness of the block. in the AE thread that led to the blocks against myself and nableezy, nableezy was notified of the discussion giving him a chance to offer his side of the story; thus i believe biasing the result (hence the 3 hour vs. 48 hour bans). i was not afforded such a courtesy until after i had already been blocked (i wasn't originally named in that AE case) and was given no chance to defend myself. even in GeorgeWilliamHerbert's comment on my talk page which notified me of the block he failed to mention the thread at AE which prompted his actions, i only discovered that discussion when i looked at nableezy's talk page. if i had been notified or warned that my comments had created "disruption", i would have been glad to retract or modify them to appease the concerns of other users; even if i disagreed with them. i like to think i am not a difficult person to get along with, a quick look at the "awards" section of my user page shows that i have the ability to remain calm and collected in the face of chaos (while i may have failed to do this in my appeal unfortunately). instead i got blocked for 48 hours and had my block log needlessly sullied for a comment that i did not make but that was merely implied by users sympathetic to nableezy and his political POV. when an uninvolved user looks at my block log in the future and sees "accused editor of supporting terrorism", what impression do you think that is going to give. that i made maybe slightly misguided comments that led to some offense, or that i irrationally and antagonistically accused another editor of being a terrorist? ultimately, i am just upset that such an aviodable situation got blown way out of proportion and has resulted in my reputation becoming tarnished in the eyes of many; mainly because one admin didn't have the decency to even say hello to me before using their admin powers against me.

finally, as to your assertion that my comment was unecessary; maybe it was maybe it wasn't. i don't see making an observation on another users bias as being unecessary, particularly when said user clearly displays their support for a carbon copy political organization (hezbollah, which is also designated as a terrorist group by various governments) on their user page. i see it as useful information as it is making that users POV more obvious to the reviewing admin (that comment being made in a deletion discussion). it seems silly to forcibly ignore such pertinent information in the interest of what i can only describe as political correctness. if i had used it as a point to attack nableezy on, i could see the validity of say malik shabazz's comments on my talk page. he tried to help me see his POV of my comments by making a mock accusation at me in our discussion, the difference was he used pejorative words in his accusation such as "shilling" to try and misconstrue my comments as a personal attack. in short, was i commenting on the contributor and not the contributions? obviously. but whether it was a personal attack or merely an observation is the main difference; i never intended it to be the former. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, if you cross the line again, you'll receive a longer block. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
are you upset with me for something? i'm making an effort to understand your side of the debate, whats with the curt reply? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I need to take a break from this topic area. Anyway, there's a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles and the associated talk page about how admins should enforce ArbCom decisions in this area, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
understood, i can relate to how such a topic area could wear your patience thin. maybe when you're in a better state of mind you can reread my comment here and offer an opinion (but it's up to you). for what its worth, of the editors i disagreed with in my appeal, you are the one i trust the most to offer a neutral opinion. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the points raised that i would rate of greatest concern; not being notified of the discussion which led to my block and also the false statement now in my block log that i accused another editor of supporting terrorism (i fear this false statement will be misused as ammunition against me in future debates). but again its up to you, don't feel obliged to reply, it would be appreciated though. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WIH, I've thought this over for a while, and I'm still no closer to working out what I should say to you. In this context, my suggestion is to look at the thread immediately below this one. While you and Nableezy were insulting each other, and fighting it out at WP:AE, George (talk · contribs) was engaging in constructive dialogue to solve what is probably the most widespread dispute in the I-P area at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said "While you and Nableezy were insulting each other" )(highlighted by me). Then why Nab was blocked only for 3 hours while the other editor was blocked for 48 hours! It is extremely unfair.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Award of a Barnstar

Thanks Phil! It can be pretty difficult to work out compromises between editors in this area, and I'm less successful than I'd like, but I appreciate that the effort is noticed. :) ← George talk 00:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-P articles

Hi Phil,

I just noticed this, as I had observed – and just about predicted FWIW – the inevitable latest deterioration in the I-P area. As per that link, I’m banned under ARBPIA2 (oddly, but that’s another story) and as a result, I won’t comment there, but did want to make the point somewhere that the key problem is of course the nature of the topic area itself. Focusing on editors and process is necessary, and yes it would be better to have/encourage more neutrally-minded editors, but what really needs to happen in general terms is that some specific ground rules are laid down about sourcing and style/terminology, so that both follow serious, mainstream international standards. That is, strict application of wp:rs, wp:npov and wp:undue etc as they relate to this topic, binding on all editors regardless of their politics or views. Stick to authoritative, academic sources, and where appropriate, mainstream media news reporting (which would, for example, include the Guardian and CNN, however much some people might dislike that); but no quoting of random op-eds or partisan campaign groups or extrapolating one cited interpretation/analysis as if it were a generalised “fact”. Plus call things what they are generally called in the real world. It shouldn’t be impossible to draw up lists of these things, and to apply them with reasonable leeway when appropriate given the context.

I also see the discussion is tending towards imposing 1RR. I’m not sure this ever works – yes, it slows down edit wars and offers superficial stability, but I’m not sure it ever of itself ultimately improves content, which surely is the priority? Given that in these conflict areas one problem is the constant addition of dubious and poorly-sourced partisan content, it can backfire as it allows the constant accretion of yet more such material (although maybe that simply reflects my general view that 60% of the content in WP as a whole is mostly cr#p and should be deleted forthwith). Of the other options that have been presented, I’d also be wary of topic bans. With mass topic bans all that happens is that the relatively disinterested editors <ahem> who happened to get caught up in one are booted out from what ends up being often huge swaths of the website (especially given that genuine warriors try to drag I-P issues into the most unlikely pages), while several of the seriously partisan manage by chance to escape. Meanwhile, those dedicated extremists who were banned simply return with a new account, or new similarly-minded editors sign up to continue the same battles. Anyway, apologies for the essay (and hopefully 3rd parties won't start a huge thread on your page - feel free to delete this note), but I still keep an eye on these things from afar occasionally, and slightly despair. N-HH talk/edits 14:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the core problem is that we tolerate editors who are either unable or unwilling to conduct themselves in a dignified manner. While I'm willing to try 1RR, I personally believe the situation has deteriorated to the extent that far wider scale topic bans are needed. Rather than taking a 'blacklist' approach, the situation is such that I think a 'whitelist' should be created, and everyone else who has been notified of the ArbCom case should be topic banned indefinitely. From there, we could use semi-protection, or pending changes, or whatever tool is best suited to deal with the sockpuppets. PhilKnight (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, it seems we do disagree - but if WP is primarily an encyclopedia rather than a social forum or a role-playing game of some sort, surely the core problem/issue is the quality of the content. Obviously editor conduct matters too, and I'm not condoning "bad" behaviour. Plus it's rather dispiriting to look at every AfD debate, AE/ANI report simply descending into a partisan stand-off with exactly the same faces all turning up to predictably take opposing sides, regardless of the merits of the issue at hand. But in the real world, people of course kill other people over the issues at stake in the I-P conflict. Even fairly serious academics in the field get piqued and vent. Here, setting clear rules for sources, content and style both addresses the content problems directly, and also ties the hands of those editors who come here in bad faith or to score political points. Sure, some option with regard to sanctions on individual editors always has to be there on top of that, and maybe the whitelist isn't such a bad idea, but it doesn't deal with the old problem of civil POV-pushing. And no matter how many people you topic ban, like I say, you're just going to get new editors - socks or otherwise - who make it on to any whitelist eventually arguing over the same old issues (if you get any on it at all, once you've dumped all current notified editors). We've already seen it come round that way multiple times. It's a fundamental mistake to see it as simply being down to the people involved at any one time. That can be a factor, but it's not the key one. Edit wars, incivility etc are symptoms of deeper problems, and focusing on the symptoms doesn't make the problem go away. Anyway, I wasn't planning to starting a long debate on this and I've said my piece I guess. Cheers anyway, N-HH talk/edits 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, and good to hear from you. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add my two cents to the discussion, I really like the " everyone else who has been notified of the ArbCom case should be topic banned indefinitely " idea. Frankly, it seems to me as though pretty much everyone who primarily edits IP articles is approaching it from a fairly entrenched POV. While a lot of these editors do add value to some IP pages, they also consume a great deal of WP's time w/ battlegrounding and arbitration. Topic ban all of them. Simple, neat, quick solution.
While I think N-HH raises some good points re "strict application of wp:rs, wp:npov and wp:undue" and "which would, for example, ..... random op-eds", I don't think it's radical enough to simply reiterate the rules and ask people to act in good faith. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Feel free to delete this, but asking an admin who is active in AE about recent AE activity he was involved in is not "treating wikipedia as a battleground".
Anyway, I think I got the underlying message. I won't post here again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, you could at least acknowledge that WIH was notified of WP:ARBPIA, and in this context, his remark was unacceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if he or anyone else told another editor they "supported terrorism" they should be removed from the topic area permanently. I don't think it's obvious that's what he said. He says it's not what he meant and even the editor he said it to never said that's how he read it. I think WIH deserves a fair hearing and I don't think he got one. If after hearing his side of the story uninvolved admins are convinced that what he says amounts to "you support terrorism", then he should receive a very harsh sanction indeed. There should be a fair and equal process for everyone. I don't think that happened here. I also think things like this make people feel AE is random and arbitrary. With no confidence that the rules are applied fairly and equally editors will feel free not to follow them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common misconception - the WP:AE board was never intended to give a 'fair hearing'. I suggest you look at the early archives how the board functioned originally to see what was actually intended. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a misconception it's very common. I think most editors on this project assume that people deserve a fair hearing if they're accused of something, except maybe serial offenders who have exhausted all AGF.
I looked at the archives. Can't say I feel enlightened. Could you please explain to me how AE is supposed to work? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this thread from the good old days before the page became a free for all. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm following you correctly, you're saying that at AE administrators are supposed to take action without discussion. Maybe that's how it was originally intended, but now the template you use to file a complaint has sections for stuff like "Statement by {{{User against whom enforcement is requested}}}" and "Comments by others about the request concerning {{{User against whom enforcement is requested}}}". The template encourages editors who are reported to make a statement and others to discuss the request. The expectation of a fair hearing doesn't seem to be without basis. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was the board became swamped with partisan editors, and it wasn't obvious which comments were from uninvolved admins, so the template was created. However that doesn't imply that users have some sort of a right to a hearing at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that should be noted at the top of the board then. It certainly seems that someone who is reported is expected to make a statement and that discussion is encouraged. I know I'm not the only person who got that impression. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

again phil, you have completely avoided addressing the actual issue for my block. i do see a section in ARBPIA where personal attacks are covered, i do not see a section covering "unecessary comments". you are trying to rationalize an arbitrary admin action and uneven application of the rules by very ambiguous means. you have also completely ignored all the points myself and others raised about the fairness of my block while just basically arguing it is justified "because admins have the authority". if you ask me, your apparent perception of how admin powers should be used in regards to my block has become far more of a contravention of the spirit of WP than anything i've said. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the time I read comments such as yours and wonder if the editor is joking. For example, Nableezy recently said that he wasn't aware that he was supposed to be collegial. If you're not joking, read the ARBPIA quote on my user page again, this time not in a legalistic manner, but instead asking yourself what is the writer trying to convey. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and the ambiguity continues. please point to the specific part of that quote you believe justifies my previous block. i would really like to understand your reasoning, but you are making it rather difficult to do so. and i'm sorry if you don't like my literal interpretation of words, taking them to mean what they say rather than what you belive is implied. i'm not a lawyer, but i do like to stick to facts rather than vauge interpretations of what was written between the lines; i guess it's just one of my personality flaws. WookieInHeat (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also, i hope you can take my sarcasm in stride. i'm honestly not intending it to be abrasive or insulting, it is just my way of addressing points i disagree with. cheers (sincerely) WookieInHeat (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WIH, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you. From my perspective, it's somewhat obvious the I-P set of articles are fraught with difficulty and that editors wishing to edit in this area need to tread very carefully. The quote that you've just read explains this very eloquently, and you seem to be refusing to get the point. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i do get that point phil, i will not be repeating such things in the future. but a simple message or even a warning from you or GWH could have accomplished this; particularly considering it was my first and only offense. i was not notified of the discussion which led to my block and subsequently was blocked for a personal attack i did not make. a point which you acknowledged to another user in my appeal, but have avoided addressing in your discussions with me. i am not trying to change your mind any more, just correcting. thank you for your time, and honestly, no hard feelings, i look forward to working constructively with you in the future. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mount Vernon Sleep Galleries Page

Mr. Phil Knight,

Just wondering why my business page I created earlier today was deleted. What do I have to do to meet Wikipedia's standards so my page is not deleted? Many of my competitors have Wikipedia pages so I am a little confused.

173.72.152.54 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure which page you're referring to - was it Mount Vernon Sleep Galleries? If so, the deletion was because of notability concerns. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Phil Knight,

What can be done differently to satisfy those concerns? I was under the impression it was set up very similar to many other business pages I've seen. I'm just confused how it could be deleted for notability reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.152.54 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has the business received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, journal, or books? PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had linked the url to our A- rating on the Better Business Bureau and we have links to our store on several vendors websites such as Simmons.com and Tempurpedic.com. We have had articles about our store on the Fredericksburg newspaper Free Lance Star in the past. We were actually the top selling single store for Simmons Beautyrest in the middle east coast in 2006. Vice President Biden actually bought four mattress sets from us in 2008. We may not be a chain store but we are well known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.152.54 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the link to the Better Business Bureau, however the sort of coverage were looking for would be along the lines of the article in the newspaper you mention. Is the article available online, or do you have a copy? PhilKnight (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have two links to the newspaper we are mentioned. It is page five 9 of the newspaper but page 5 of the google document.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9fRKRCJz75UC&dat=19900924&printsec=frontpage

The second link includes an article that quotes the President of our company, Ray Brown, for his opinion on a foam shortage from the effects from Katrina and its influence on mattresses.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10152005/137413 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.251.33 (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have two files that include articles of our store in a Simmons Nationwide newsletter. One is the cover which includes a picture of our store and the other is the article featuring more pictures of our store, our staff with Simmons executive and information about our store and its relationship with Simmons. I am not sure how to attach the files to this post so I could use a little help there or could email them to you if that is better.

Are these sources sufficient to have the page reinstated or if not could you enlighten me on what else we need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.251.33 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the situation is somewhat borderline, however I've restored the article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is it possible to also change the name of the article to "Mt. Vernon Sleep Galleries" as opposed to "Mount Vernon Sleep Galleries". The official name of the corporation has it abbreviated instead of fully spelled out. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.251.33 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinispan

Hi,

I just noticed that you had deleted a page on Infinispan that I had created a couple of years back:

"07:29, 21 September 2009 PhilKnight (talk | contribs) deleted "Infinispan" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11))"

Infinispan is an open source project that I had started in 2008 and I would very much like the wiki page to exist about it. Is there any reason why you have deleted it? I own the copyright to the project.

Cheers Manik —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManikSurtani (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Manik, the problem is that even if you own the copyright, then by definition, it's still copyrighted. My suggestion would be to start again without using copyrighted text, and taking care to avoid a promotional tone. PhilKnight (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for 1rr

I see you are adding tags on talkpages, but wouldn't it be better if a warning message pop up when you edit the articles instead? See for example how it is at the Golan Heights article [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Supreme Deliciousness, that's a good idea. I'll do that as well. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razorback216

Sorry to bother. I know your plate is full right now with the I-A stuff but if it's not too much of an imposition, can you please issue User:Razorback216 an ARBPIA warning. He's already been blocked for using multiple accounts [3][4] at the Gaza War article and he's engaged in similar past problematic behavior[5]. If you feel that a harsher remedy is warranted, by all means, I won't protest.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jiujitsuguy, I've notified Razorback216. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and apologies if I may have offended you earlier by questioning judgement.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WookieInHeat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

i don't think we are getting anywhere in our debate about my block. i believe it would be prudent to just agree to disagree on this issue and put it behind us (although i will be continuing to press the issue with GWH as he ultimately blocked me). i hold no ill feelings towards you and i hope you can do the same despite the brashness of some of my previous comments. while i disagree with you on this particular point, i do appreciate your neutrality in this topic area and wish we had more admins like you. wish you all the best and hope you are able to avoid letting the divisiveness of the I-P topic get to you. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of warning

Hi Phil. I'm just a little concerned about this new ARBPIA template I noticed you adding to some articles, which states "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." Blocking people without warning seems to me to be a denial of natural justice. Also, I didn't see anywhere in the 1RR discussion that no warning was agreed upon, is this something you decided for yourself or did it already exist in some ARBPIA ruling and I just missed it? Gatoclass (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, I used the same wording that was in {{Troubles restriction}}. As it happens, I agree with Supreme Deliciousness's suggestion to use page notices in addition to the template on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page notices are a good idea, but I still think it would be good practice to give users a formal warning for a first offence. Apart from anything else, I can see it creating unnecessary Wikidrama if they don't. Gatoclass (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes

I noticed that you hadn't been notified yet, so...: There is an ongoing deletion review (see here) for List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes, which you deleted. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request asistance

Phil, Could you please explain to Nableezy the concept of good faith -- I've taken the time to review the report that Peace Now makes claims about and the content they claim to be on that report is not there. Nableezy's demands (repeated at least 3 times) that in order to believe my review of the original report over the claims of a non reliable source (Peace Now), I must find a source that talks about the non reliable source, saying their report on this instance is unreliable. This seems completely unreasonable and insulting to boot. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Phil, please explain to Nableezy that a Wikipedia editor can say that a source is lying and by uttering those words every other editor must believe this person and not the source. nableezy - 11:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really portraying this, Nableezy, as a case where its one newbie unreliable (maybe even an anonymous IP) editor that said something about Peace Now when there were two established editors trying to explain the situation? No wonder Shuki lost his cool and called you a liar. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you both are hereby required to watch this video. After watching this video I want you grasp the important truth that my page isn't the argument room. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of the Pythons -- have you seen the new documentary? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR question

Hello Phil. My 1RR contains no exemption from reverting IP edits, but are reverts of vandalism exempted? And would this qualify as "vandalism"? nableezy - 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy, yes, I agree your 1RR contains no blanket exemption from reverting IP edits, yes, blatant vandalism such as page blanking or adding expletives is exempt, and no, in my humble opinion, the diff isn't of blatant vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right, thanks. nableezy - 15:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]