User talk:PhilKnight/Archive65

User talk:58.107.67.39

This IP whom you blocked has returned and continues their disruptive edits to Wikipedia. While not all edits are vandalism, this editor continues to add unreferenced and often incorrect information to articles (intentional or not) and has not responded to warnings or inquiries about his edits. Perhaps you can tend to this again? Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mkdw, I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-pantsing

I was in the process of adding a reference when you deleted it as a hoax. I will restore it with the ref. It might be fodder for AFD or merger to bullying. Edison (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edison, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another mediation request

PhilKnight, i don't want to fan any flames (or flame any fans!) by bringing it up myself on Talk:Little Richard, so i'll try the relative privacy of your page: i feel it would be helpful to ask, for the record, whether these edits were all made by the same person who is currently editing under the user name Smoovedogg: note the edit summaries here: [1], [2], [3] and [4], and the post itself here: [5]. those are some examples of a style of post and edit summary that's a rather striking contrast to the current style, and i'd be more comfortable knowing whether it's one person or more. it might also be worthwhile to make sure there's no COI relationship to the author of a still-unpublished book that he/she/they cited here. i'll trust your mediational expertise to make the enquiries in an appropriate manner - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sssoul, yes I guess they're all Smoovedogg - I've semi-protected the article so he can only edit logged in. PhilKnight (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PhilKnight. I just want to let you know that sometimes I would forget to log in. And for a long time I did not know how to sign (you can check the history). I try to remember to log in or check if I am logged in all the time. By the way, there is no COI and feel free to look into that. I am, however, concerned already with a couple of things in relation to the conduct of another party, as Wikipedia's policy against harassment (ie. WP:OUTTING) takes precedence over the guideline on COI. I am also concerned with privacy issues that I would like to discuss more privately with you or whomever has authority to deal with same. Again, I appreciate your intervention, am pleased on some levels with article progress, with the exception of my failing to bring in other editors to bring more of a balanced approach to the 'mediation' process. I thought this would happen but I am doing what I can right now within the scope of my individual power. I am also glad you semi-protected the page, as this will help prevent it from vandalism in the future. I suggested something similar sometimes ago.--Smoovedogg (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks PhilKnight - and i'm sorry if my wording was unclear: i understand that those diffs were all edits by the same person (sometimes logged in, sometimes not); what i've had doubts about is whether that's the same person who is now using the Smoovedogg acccount - the sudden cessation of the incivility and personal attacks seemed like perhaps a different editor using the same account. meanwhile, until further notice i assume the accusation of WP:Outing below has nothing to do with me, since asking if there's a COI is not "outting" anyone. thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PhilKnight. I just want to let you know that sometimes I would forget to log in. And for a long time I did not know how to sign (you can check the history). I try to remember to log in or check if I am logged in all the time. By the way, there is no COI and feel free to look into that. I am, however, concerned already with a couple of things in relation to the conduct of another party, as Wikipedia's policy against harassment (ie. WP:OUTTING) takes precedence over the guideline on COI. I am also concerned with privacy issues that I would like to discuss more privately with you or whomever has authority to deal with same. Again, I appreciate your intervention, am pleased on some levels with article progress, with the exception of my failing to bring in other editors to bring more of a balanced approach to the 'mediation' process. I thought this would happen but I am doing what I can right now within the scope of my individual power. I am also glad you semi-protected the page, as this will help prevent it from vandalism in the future. I suggested something similar sometimes ago.--Smoovedogg (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I, or a representative, may provide further clarification to any relevant/involved party in the future. In the meantine, I remain open, PhilKnight, to private discussion and request that there be a cessation of repeated, ongoing use of unproductive wording on the part of Sssoul, such as "incivility and personal attacks" and/or guessing who I may or may not be, which may lead one to believe that I am an individual that I may not be. I also remain open and committed to trying to help shape the article in question in a professional manner.--Smoovedogg (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mashkevitch

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Claim of libel at Alexander Mashkevitch. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G, thanks for letting me know. Good call on blocking the account for repeated copyright violations. PhilKnight (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.31.168.252

User:66.31.168.252 has replaced his or her talk page with your block notice which appears to still be in effect with the character '{'. This may be a good faith error intending to appeal the block, and I might be reading the policy on blanking userpages incorrectly, but I thought that I would drop a note in case this page had dropped off your radar. Regards, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[6]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, Deb reverted a good faith edit of yours without an edit summary, and you responded with a level 1 warning that starts with 'Welcome to Wikipedia'. Obviously, communicating intentions with an edit summary is often a good idea, and personalized notes sometimes diffuse problems better than standard templates. Anyway, my advice would be to consider the whole thing a misunderstanding and let it go. PhilKnight (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is an ongoing discussion on my talk page as well. My main issue is having an opinion discounted because of a colorful history, I think that in an Admin that is a counter productive viewpoint and my main complaint.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examining History - Detecting Foul Play

Thank you for this info, PhilKnight. I only want participation from those who will be professional in his or her conduct and was hoping that would be the case if they were to continue to be involved. As somewhat of a newcomers compared to many others, I wish I understood how to navigate through Wiki better because through examination of the talk pages (and histories where information has been 'deleted') of at least one other user, I am finding what appears to be 'unfair practice' occuring, on the part of at least one user who was 'on the other side of the fence' of the user who was recently blocked. This practice has been trickling into the Little Richard page, riding the rails with the 'informal mediation process, and possibly tainting the editorial process.--Smoovedogg (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoovedogg (talk • contribs)

Block user?

Please see here, clear to me that it is a self-promotion-only account. If this needs to go to a noticeboard instead for "proper procedure" I'll be happy to do that. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomoskedasticity, thanks for the note. There seem to be problems relating to a promotional username, conflict of interest editing, and copyright infringement. I've given the user a warning, and tagged the article for deletion to allow review by another admin. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsden

A few months ago you blocked indefinitely the page Ramsden for persistent re-creation. I'd like to create it again with the content of User:Saga City/Ramsden which is a typical geodis (although 2 extraterrestrial locations aren't that typical) and, presumably, inoffensive. I'll keep it on my watchlist in case any unsuitable edits are made if you could now release it from its block.

Best Wishes Saga City (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saga City, I've unprotected the page, and moved your subpage there. Hope that's ok. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant - thanks. Saga City (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see you're busy, but ...

just wanted to let you know you've got email. thanks Sssoul (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you please block footy1993? He/she is only here to cause trouble, i believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My speakers ROCK (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest you have a look at the instructions on the WP:AIV page, and post a report there? PhilKnight (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meghwal proposed move

I have added a section to Talk:Meghwal for discussion of a proposed move to Megh (people). If there is consensus, I wlll do the move in 7 days. Please add your comments to the talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is this

why my uploaded picture File:naveed e sahar was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveed e sahar (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naveed, I've restored the image. However, in order to prevent the image being deleted again, you need to provide the source and license. I've left a message on your talk page which hopefully should explain the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse James History

I would like a detailed explanation as to why you deleted the Wikipedia page of Perry Samuel. Brent James (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brent, I've undeleted the article. Anything deleted under the proposed deletion process (sometimes called prod) can be restored following a request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba page

Hi, about a month ago you had made some edits to the Sathya Sai Baba page. I was wondering if you could take a look at the Criticism and controversy section again as it seems to need a neutral point of view. Thank you for your time...

J929 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My account semi-protect pages

Can I edit on semi-protect pages? Is it possible you can allow me now to edit. Please see Talk:Nairi. It regards a very simple edit of the template in these appropriate pages. The template was there over 2 years prior to edit warring of the pages regarding only the template being there which is linked to those pages. Its the Template:History of Armenia template which has those links see Talk:Nairi for details. These pages have been perm locked just cause of adding template and the admin Dbachmann keeps removing them, but leaves the other link Armens next to these links with the template. I would apprieciate your help thank you. Vazgen4 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vazgen4, by way of background, there are a few vandals who make just enough edits to gain autoconfirmed status, before causing a lot of disruption. It's for this reason the concept of autoconfirmed status was created, and then later the edit filter was implemented. I realize that you're a good faith user, and I apologize for what probably seems to be an unnecessary hoop jumping exercise. However, I've been in disputes with Dbachmann, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to give you autoconfirmed status to enable you to edit semiprotected pages. At the moment, I believe autoconfirmed status is automatically given to an account which is more than 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits, so you'll receive the status on 17:01 (UTC) Saturday. Sorry I couldn't be more help. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedKing7

I would advise you to review the extensive logs involving RedKing7 before making any decision to reinstate editing rights to RedKing7. He is a notoriously tendentious editor who is uncooperative in discussions and who cannot see issues as anything more than black and white. There is ample evidence of editors laboriously trying to reason with him, and then fixing up his unmandated edits.

The decision may be made to lift his ban but prohibit him from editing any Irish, Taiwanese or diplomacy articles. I would warn you that he takes a broad definition of what "editing " is - if he cannot write to an article he will post warning templates even for matters that have been settled.

And even if he chooses not to get involved on articles I work on, he will inevitably find other articles in which, if past practice is any guide, he will aggressively push a one tracked agenda.

RedKing7 has constantly sought to have temporary blocks lifted. On all occasions they have been refused. He has no capacity to take cues from other editors and behave in an appropriate manner.

Of course I am close to this (having spent an exhausting year dealing with him) and may not be entirely subjective in my views. You are welcome, and indeed you should, review the case on its merits with an open mind. I would only ask that a broad range of admins are involved in reviewing the block if a formal appeals process takes place. You do not want to be known as the one person who let the genie out of the bottle! Kransky (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kransky, I didn't realise there was a discussion on WP:ANI. Hopefully a consensus will form about the best course of action. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks! Edison (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... closed?

PhilKnight, i'm confused: why has the Little Richard MedCab case been closed? the last i heard, the participants were waiting for the mediator(s) to propose something, make some kind of constructive comment, etc, so this unceremonious closing seems both abrupt and ambiguous. could we have a clear statement of your thoughts on the case, including how the participants should proceed now that MedCab has apparently decided not to be involved? thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sssoul, I'll reclose the case with some kind of constructive comment on how the parties can proceed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montefiore Windmill

Re the discussion in your archive 63, I referred the dispute to RfC. The RfC was allowed to run for 30 days, with the result of 3-1 in favourn of the inclusion of the alternative name. One sockpupped !vote ignored and one unclear !vote ignored. I've re-added the alternative name to the article but NMMNG and Gilabrand are still arguing over the result and inclusion of the name. Where do we go from here? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots, thanks for letting me know. Given the result of the RfC is reasonably clear, I think WP:ARBPIA sanctions could possibly be considered if an involved editor attempts to disregard consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope they'll accept the legitimacy of the alternative name now. I was at a meeting yesterday when the mill was mentioned by the alternative name, seems that further restoration work may be planned. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemons vs Limes, bad page?

Hello Phil,

What was wrong with my Lemons vs Limes page? It was a factual online war that is ongoing. I was only spreading the word.

Let me know what was wrong and rest assured my next post will not be worth removing.

--Lemon Leader

Hi Lemon Leader, the general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Lostock library.jpg

Hi Phil, just wanted to say thanks. When I originally uploaded the photo, I clicked the wrong option. The photo is one that I taken myself with my camera, but when I uploaded it, I clicked the wrong option, and couldn't find a way to adjust that. This deletion will now help me be able to re-upload, and this time click the correct option. Regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You deleted my image. Allow me to explain....

Greetings. You deleted 2007-08-09 Nicholas Benton FAIR USAGE image.jpg

The discussion page contained additional information, since someone had disputed the copyright rationale. The image was for the Nicholas F. Benton page. It was not orphaned except for the over-eager bots that chew things up.

I can understand that you may not have had access to this information. Can you undelete it or do I need to re-upload?

Many thanks.

HAJ1300 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HAJ1300, I've opened a discussion about file:2007 Nicholas Benton.jpg at files for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I provided a lengthy, rationale, citing WP policies, for why this file is allowable. I didn't see anything in the template or comments you listed saying the picture was not allowable. Would welcome further explanation. HAJ1300 (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

Hi PhilKnight; some more help here [7] would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JNW, I guess that was kinda predictable - I shouldn't have allowed him to edit the user talk page while blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in giving users the benefit of the doubt. There are those whose sole purpose is disruptive, and I always feel silly edit-warring on an IP talk page. Thanks, JNW (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]