User talk:PhilKnight/Archive35

Editing Advice
Thanks for the advice! Follow up: My own advice (speaking from experience): an editor, who put lots of effort into an article and is left feeling by you administrators like the effort was a waste of time, is not likely to further contribute or make a donation. No administrator communicated anything to me even after arbitration leaving a total sense of dissatisfaction. Ledboots (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Item 1. Has anyone said anything to the other party who incites that kind of reply? That type of provoking is uncalled for and they have a reputation for being uncivil. Obviously that party did not edit-protect the page and I was not addressing them, yet they left an inflammatory reply anyway (which I'd like to request you advise them not to).
 * Item 2. You are preaching to the choir. The vast majority of my arguments include citations and accuracy. But then again, this is only the discussion page and besides - some forms of common knowledge are acceptable, are they not?
 * Item 3. I have not made any reverts in weeks, or edits, and have no intention to.

New Focus at Unreferenced articles
The huge set of unreferenced articles from June of 2006 is finally completed. Thank you for your contributions. The new focus at Unreferenced articles is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 which as of May 28 is only 1,322 articles and should go much quicker. Thank you to everyone who has contributed and listed themselves as a volunteer. Jeepday (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers
You read my mind :) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy intervention re User talk:71.103.109.224 - that was the first time I'd had a vandal respond back Jonathan Cardy (talk)

LIZZYYYYY
Has this user been auto-blocked? I believe it's only the username that's the problem. —BradV 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that. Cheers. —BradV 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No edit war on AFA
Just anti-AFA POV warriors not proving how their references justify the article content (as Wikipedia guidelines say they should). 67.135.49.116 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but please read the WP:3RR policy carefully. If you are reverting vandalism, or removing copyright violations, then you can exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. However, if you are reverting infringements of the verifiability policy then you can't exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours. Finally, if you want to remove warnings from your talk page, then go ahead - the censorship warnings weren't appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy
It appears I have been banned from editing the article related to Homeopathy. Kindly look at the History of the page, to tell me where have I erred to earn that punishment.Hallenrm (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You aren't banned, the note left by Scientizzle was merely to inform you the article is under probation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lionseeker
The editor Lionseeker who petitioned to be unblocked early and you declined, almost immediately after block expiration, started inserting the same NPOV statements and references into articles instead of building consensus like you and other administrators suggested. I do not know if there is anything you can do about it but I thought I would let you know, thanks!--Finalnight (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I've given him a warning. PhilKnight (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalie Glebova
Hi, thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, you've protected an incorrect version. In regards to her height, the official Miss Universe website her height is 5'11" (Internet archive cache, if you right-click and choose properties for the bottom left box, you'll see that her height is 5'11 -- the image which stated it is no longer available). 's version is based on original research and as I currently cannot find any news articles stating her height, I think we should go with the Miss Universe version per WP:VERIFY.   In the meantime I'm still trying to chase up better verification. Cheers. PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  00:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally found a reference -- through a protected database so I can't show your a url or anything but the details are: . To quote the article: "At 5' 11" and 125 lbs, the reigning Miss Universe, Natalie Glebova of Toronto, has a statuesque model physique".  Perhaps you can change it and add the reference? Thanks.  PageantUpdater  talk • contribs  00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The best I found was: I'll unprotect. PhilKnight (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-30 Discrimination/Selected picture
Am I missing something? Why was this case closed? As far as I can tell, mediation never started... how can it be closed already? And shouldn't there be given a reason for closing along with the resolution? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the dispute is all or nothing, that is either the picture is included or not, then I doubt mediation will help resolve the situation. If you still feel strongly about this, I would suggest another rfc, however I suspect you would get the same result - significant numbers of editors on both sides. PhilKnight (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:74.13.130.46
This IP reported by me at WP:AIV and hence blocked was a mistake from my side. Usually we dont see activity on the DYK pages with IP address, I mistood it as a vandal blanking the page. I suspected it as I saw another user also reverting the edits by the IP. My bad ! Sorry :( --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Recurring problems with an unconstructive editor
Hello PhilKnight,

I arrived on your talk page via Editor assistance, because of your discription: "Reasonably experienced in dealing with edit wars and the dispute resolution process". I have, on 2 seperate occasions now, had lengthy discussions with a particular editor (LeaveSleaves (talk)) in which this editor has employed counterproductive debating techniques. I believe that this editor does attempt to make good faith edits, but whenever his position is challenged or mistakes are pointed out, he refuses to read, take note of and address the points raised in any replies. Instead he sticks to his original position no matter what arguments are put forward or evidence presented, and seems to take it as an insult if I explain where he is mistaken (with reasoned arguments, links etc) or why I disagree with his opinions. I have also taken issue with his excessive haste to nominate an article for deletion, rather than addressing any concerns he had with the article on the talk page or by editing the article itself.

Although I have no current dispute with the user, I feel certain that I will have to deal with the user's editing and discussions in the future, and I would like it made clear to him that his counterproductive debating techniques are not acceptable, so that I, and other users, do not have to waste valuable time and effort in the future dealing with similar behaviour. I have little experience in dealing with dispute resolution, so I am unsure of the protocol for dealing with such users, both initially and if they refuse to modify their behaviour, and as such your input into this would be valuable. Having said that, there seems little point in me ever trying to reason with him about his conduct, considering the obvious animosity he now feels towards me. I will now detail the history of the disputes fully, to allow you to judge for yourself the conduct of both of us, and so that you can make an informed decision on how to proceed. I should note that both of the disputes were cricket-related, but the conduct to which I refer is not.

The first dispute

This dispute started on the talk page for the 2008 Indian Premier League article, a cricket tournament that has just completed its inaugural season. The season and its corresponding article were both then at an early stage, and I had created a template, (since then improved by having nicer looking icons but essentially the same) to improve the presentation and clarity of the score summaries for each match in the tournament. LeaveSleaves very quickly objected to my edit (and all 3 of the major aspects of it) and a lengthy discussion ensued. I moved the discussion to a different talk page at the suggestion of LeaveSleaves in order to facilitate a discussion, despite my (continuing) belief that the discussion was only relevant to the original talk page, something which I stated in the discussion. As such, the remainder of the discussion took place on the new talk page. The complete discussion can be seen (under 3 headings) here: 1st heading, 2nd heading and 3rd heading.

During the discussion there were a number of occasions where he did not address the points I raised, but continued to insist that his own opinion should hold sway. Some of the links he provided (which were supposed to prove his viewpoint) I subsequently investigated and demonstrated in the discussion in fact contained information in opposition to the viewpoint he espoused. As you can see from the discussion, of the 3 issues, the main focus was on the issue of which of the 2 teams should be listed first in the scorecard (an important consideration for a cricket scorecard). I advocated that the side listed first should be the side which batted first, while he stated that it should be the home side. Incidentally, my edit had still managed to retain the information showing which side was the home side by adding an (H) symbol in an appropriate place. During the discussion, not only did he not refute any of my arguments as to why the modification was an improvement (some arguments of which I had to repeat multiple times), but he repeatedly claimed that my edits should be reverted because he knew that the consensus regarding cricket articles was for the home team to be listed first. I was initially unaware if this was true or not, but I took his claims at face value. However, whenever I asked him for specific links to relevant pages showing this consensus, he would ignore the request and continue to advocate his position. I eventually discovered, through my own efforts, that the overwhelming consensus in fact supported my format and opposed his. As you can see, I wrote a post to state this information (with multiple relevant links) and to tell his to not engage in such obviously unhelpful debating techniques in the future. I posted an extract from this post on his talk page, to inform him that his conduct was not acceptable and should not be repeated in the future, and this extract can be found here. After this post he ceased his participation in the discussion and the modifications that I had made continued in existence.

The second dispute

This occurred only over the past day or 2, and concerned the newly created article for 2009 Indian Premier League. The discussion took place on its talk page As becomes clear from the discussion, since well before the 2008 (and inaugural) season of the Indian Premier League, yearly editions had definitely been planned to occur in 2009 and 2010, not least because the players were already under contract to play during the 3 years from 2008 to 2010. There had already been an initial thread dealing with the specific dates in 2009 that the IPL was to occur, and the lack of a reference for these claims. Before LeaveSleaves posted on the page, 2 Template:fact tags had already been placed in the article to deal with this. However, LeaveSleaves proceeded to enter the discussion with a new thread in which he proposed the deletion of the article, and slapped a Template:PROD tag on the article itself, with the added text "Based purely on speculation, no official or other substantiation". In his talk thread he had posted 2 links, which he claimed demonstrated there was "no indication anywhere as to when the next season is or what are the possible changes taking place". In fact the 2 links had referred to another proposal by the IPL chief, where it was mooted that there be 2 IPL seasons inside a single year. It was this proposal that had been shelved for the next few years at least, and not the plan for a single IPL Season in 2009, which was still definitely planned to go ahead. When I saw LeaveSleaves' post I explained the situation and removed the deletion tag from the article. However, the user evidently did not give my post due consideration and instead claimed that I had agreed with his assertion that the wikipedia page was "invalid", something which I definitely did not do, and that I was contradicting myself by opposing its deletion. I attempted to explain again, and after that once more, what the articles were referring to, including extracting specific quotes from one of the articles, but still he refused to consider my arguments or reread his own links. By this time he had become quite annoyed that I might try to explain his mistake, and I myself was starting to become frustrated by his unwillingness to engage in rational debate. After this he put the article up for deletion and opened this discussion, closing the discussion when another user had added what he considered to be an adequate link. As you can see from the remainder of the discussions, all my other posts on the topic proved fruitless, and my attempt to reprimand him for his conduct was met with a tit-for-tat reply calling me "condescending and pedantic". The argument about whether a 2009 season would occur or not was cleverly avoided in his statement: The thing which was in fact somewhat hazy was the dates within 2009 for the 2009 season, not whether the next season would occur in 2009 or not. There was also another issue raised about whether the article should be merged with another article (he proposed the merger and I opposed it).
 * "And for the last time, the reason I entered those links was only to point out that the information about the next season (again, the details not occurrence) is extremely hazy and unclear"

This is the current situation with regard to this second dispute, and I have not replied to his most recent post, as I think there is no point in me doing so.

My main concern out of all this is not to do with deciding any of the issues regarding the content of particular wikipedia articles. Rather, it is so ensure that LeaveSleaves is put on notice that his debating techniques were counterproductive and to ensure that he will not be allowed to engage in such conduct again without reprimand and sanction. Considering that I (and other users) are likely to encounter him again in dealing with cricket-related, and specifically IPL-related articles, I think this is a matter of high importance.

Assuming that you decide to take this matter on, I thank you for your assistance. Juwe (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again PhilKnight, but I notice you have been editing recently and are presumably still online. I know my post is a bit of a long one, and the story somewhat complicated (I tried my best to summarise the key points) but (will you have)/(have you had) a look at it at some point? Just a simple yes or no answer would be appreciated. Thanks Juwe (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Juwe, sorry for not replying earlier, however, after think this over, I'm still not sure what to suggest. If the problems were more severe, I would recommend a request for comment on user conduct, but in this case, that would probably be excessive. Perhaps it would be better if you copied your message onto the request page of Editor Assistance, and someone else handled this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for your consideration anyway. Juwe (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

unprotect of Sterling Jewelers Inc.
Can you please unprotect that page? The medcab case hasn't had activity for nearly 2 months, and the mediator has stopped contributing at all. Article talk isn't getting much traffic, either. Thanks, Xavexgoem (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I confused cases. I'll ask Xenosagian first ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, he hasn't replied. I think I'll close the case - none of the contributors to the dispute are on the talk page, either. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

rfa thanks
Phil, just wanted to thank you for participating in my recent RFA. your further comments are welcome at my in-depth RFA analysis. i've also left some templated thank spam for you below. best regards, xenocidic (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) templated rfa thank-spam 

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).
 * Thank you for your support

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Erik Fartman
A pleasant chap, wasn't he :) MSGJ (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2
Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:REDYVA
So, since he's decided to start editing his talk page again, perhaps the deleted part should be undeleted? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Doctor_Bojangles
After reviewing this guy's contribs, I think an undef block would be appropriate. He's obviously not here to be constructive. What do you think? John Reaves 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, good call. PhilKnight (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

pls indef and full protect my userpage and talkpage.
pls indef and full protect my userpage and talkpage. my talkpage should stay completely blanked. i just want to get this done as fast as possible since i'm now about to leave wiki indef and wanna get this done. thx in advance. sincere SomeUsr 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Phil. The user above has been perpetrating personal attacks against me and has continued to edit despite making claims about wanting to leave the project. I don't think it is appropriate to protect this user's talk page since the user is still active. This action prevents members of the community from communicating with him. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * well, i'm gone and even changed my password and deleted my email adress. the password is a radom one so i can't login anymore. you will notice that my former account will not make any more edits. i declare this issue setteled...now do whatever you please. good night and good luck. 79.233.80.119 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

P-I protection
Slim did not edit a P-I article disruptively after the arb case. The image tagging to me is a separate issue. The consensus at ANI and on Kelly's talk page (which Kelly removed) is against this warning being there. The arb case deals with P-I articles not tagging issues. I'm removing Slim from the warning list. I do agree the P-I arb page needs protection for now. In short, I feel you protected the wrong version. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rlevse, go ahead. The only reason I haven't is that it would look odd. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See my ANI posts, if you have more input, feel free to make them. I strongly feel RR and Kelly are misapplying the arb ruling. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Shetu Khan
Phil, I added the reference as you requested and removed the category unreferenced articles--Gurdjieff (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance With The Stephanie Adams Page
People keep removing vitat stats to the right of the Stephanie Adams page which are included on every playmate's page. If users feel that these confirmed stats via Playboy.com are not verifiable enough for Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should remove all playmates' stats, not just one. That is common sense, but being that a few others do not see it that way, your assistance is greatly appreciated. 72.89.109.11 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl Webb refused to fight for the US Army in Iraq
I dropped out of school in 1982. Just before turning 17 a recruiter convinced the me to join the military. I left my home in New Orleans and spent 7 years on and off active duty between 1982 to 1994, which included two overseas tours. One in Korea and one in Germany. In 1993, while serving in the Louisiana Army National Guard I got the opportunity to train in San Antonio, TX at Fort Sam Houston. First as a combat medic[[ and then as a [[licensed practical nurse. After my [[discharge[[ in December of 1994 I decided to stay in Texas and work in the health care industry.

In September of 1995 I moved to Austin, TX. In August of 2001 I enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard for three years and the very next month 911 happened. I was a medic assigned to the 249th Main Support Battalion in Austin, TX. I got stop-loss orders in July of 2004 right before his very last drill. I was told that I was to be involuntarily extended and reassigned to the 56th Brigade Combat Team as part of the 36th Infantry Division and deploy with this unit to Iraq.

According to the army's stop loss policy they can make null and void any contractual obligation you have with the military and extends your service in the military against your will. Some refer to it as a back door draft. An activist from Austin Against War got the Austin Chronicle to print an article titled Jail, Exile, or Iraqabout my situation as an anti-war activist being ordered to war. And the very next day KTBC-TV, our local Fox News affiliate, requested an interview. The week I was supposed to report for active duty I announced that I was having a goodbye party. Most of the guest didn't know it but instead of reporting for duty I'd plan to run away. On the day I was to report to Fort Hood, TX some friends of mine in Veterans For Peace hid me at their house and bought me a bus ticket the next day. I went to Tennessee to stay with a friend.

I had decided not to leave the country because I didn't want to live indefinitely in exile. My plan was to hide out until my military unit dropped me from it's roster. Then I was going to turn my self over to the USADIP(United States Army Deserter Information Point) at Fort Knox. Since deserters are no longer assigned to a unit I hoped to just get kicked out or do jail time. Either would be better than going to Iraq. But to my surprise my unit didn't drop me from the rolls so I was never entered into the Wanted Person File of the FBI National Crime Information Center. So I went to New York and spent the next year traveling around doing anti-war activism.

I gave interviews to newspapers, TV, radio, and magazine. I stayed on the East Coast until Hurricane Katrina forced me back down south to look for my missing family in New Orleans. After about two years of desertion I was kicked out of the military. I think my decision to go public with my struggle helped to pressure the military to release me in August 2006. While I was on the run in Tennessee someone made a video that was sent to Amy Goodman and she invited me to be on her [Democracy Now!] TV show. So on March 15, 2005, just before the protest of the third year of the war, I was on a show called Three U.S. Soldiers Refusing to Fight Speak Out Against the Iraq War. The video that was made by Greg Ansin while I was on the run in Tennessee is now on KLRU's Docubloggers which is a video blog on our local PBS station's website in Austin. I hope to be an example for others. I went to the Winter Soldier testimonies organized by Iraq Veterans Against War in March 2008.

Carlwebb (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Thanks for helping out with a mediation cabal case a while ago. The case was closed without much ado in the end, but I appreciated your input. Averell (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Doctor Bojangles
I'm a bit confused. A template on his user page says he's permanently blocked, yet you said on his talk page that he's 12 hour blocked. Which is it? I'm hoping for the former, because I had replied to this comment from him. I checked his user contributions, and it was much worse than passing out urban legends regarding AIDS. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Orangemarlin, he's blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't using the log tool correctly. Someone told me how to use it, now it's much clearer.   Orange  Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RV
Hi, re your revert, of course many people feel that way. The problem is that ScienceApologist is making extremely controversial edits, which make claims which cannot be sourced. On such a controversial article, he should discuss things first. At the very least, I believe that changes should not be edit warred into an article. Rather, changes should be discussed on the talk page first. If bold edits are made, which really isn't good judgment, and those edits are reverted, another editor should not come along and make it an edit war, but should discuss. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as it's being "pseudoscience," the experiments were done by the government. I suggest you read the talk page on that subject. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)