User talk:PhilKnight/Archive59

Thanks for your prompt action in blocking that last vandal.
Thanks for your prompt action in blocking that last vandal. I appreciate it.

Findsources
Hi What do you mean with ? For the servers? How do you know? And how do you know it was that template, it only has rather trivial parser functions, nothing expensive? Amalthea 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I manually edited dozens of article to fix the problem. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, work for you. But what problem, and where, and how did substing findsources into BLP unsourced and rescue change anything? I tried figuring it out from your contributions, but I don't see where it genereated work for you? -- Amalthea 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was around the time of this discussion. Can't you just take my word that it took a lot of time to fix? Also, I obviously haven't included the namespace switch in the BLP unsourced and rescue templates. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since it was me who added the template to BLP unsourced and BLP refimprove you'll have to excuse me if I was trying to figure out how I've created work with that for anybody, and the cryptic "it created a lot of work when someone added it to dozens of articles, therefore please substitute" didn't really explain the situation. Cheers, Amalthea  22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. In case you still don't understand the problem, have a look at the article history of Michelle Richmond. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, wow. I thought it had been used once at the top or something, but inside refs? Ugh. Cheers, Amalthea  12:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metamorphosis: The Alien Factor
I think I found the reliable sources you required.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Schmidt, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite Welcome Phil. Just took some digging. Glad to help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For this diff, I thank you. Saving a few once in a while is quite satisfying.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

wikiproject Ireland
Hello Phil. There are a couple of editors looking for you to further contribute to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I thought I would take it upon myself to ask you. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I have just resigned as a moderator. Sorry to throw this on you like this. I hope ArbCom can provide you with two new moderators very soon. I have already informed them. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I've resigned as well. Hopefully, 3 new moderators will be able to make a fresh start. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you attempted something I wouldn't even think of trying to do. It's a thankless job anyway. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the effort. Please don't feel that the issue is intractable and keep an eye on progress (hopefully). RashersTierney (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

MedCab
Replied at my talk page. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And again. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Phil. I know that you were initially involved with some of the Shell to Sea Mediation earlier in the year. I didn't become involved at the time as I don't feel that with my past history would have helped matters ( I originally started taking the piss as user mustycrusty then more seriously as greenlightgo, I wasn't aware of rules relating to sockpuppets and was blocked, this account is a reboot using correct protocol). Since then, I have taken things a lot more seriously and have been trying to work through things with the other user involved in these articles, Lapsed Pacifist. Unfortunatley things seem to be coming to a head, please see this. Things are at a point where nothing is being achieved. I dont know if the medcad is being continued (in which case I would like to be involved) or if its all going to be worked out at the RFM. At the moment nothing is happening which is a far from satisfactory situation for any of those involved. Thanks G  ain  Line  ♠♥ 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi GainLine, the case is going to be mediated by MedCom. Steve Crossin has an expressed an interest in being the mediator, and the case page is here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil, I actually wanted to discuss this with you. I've spoken with both the parties and with the MedCom chair about this case, and I'd like to mediate it at MedCab, but Ryan wanted your input first. I think if I mediated this case at MedCab, we could try out the new case format, see if it works. I could mediate in a way that a MedCom mediator couldn't. I could help out with discussions on talk pages, in a similar (but more attentive fashion to the way I handled the Prem Rawat case), and I think it's worth a shot, but I need your go-ahead. What do you think? Will you let me have a crack at it? Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much :D. I won't let you down :) Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitten
 62.194.6.92 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

membership SLR
Hi Phil, I undid your adding yourself as a member to WP:SLR because you cannot add yourself. This being said, we welcome new members, and would ask you to take a look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Applications Jasy jatere (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jasy, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that my "explanation" was a bit circular ;-) but still prompted you to do the right thing. People in SLR seem to be quite busy in RL now, so it might take some time, but I have no doubts that you will of course be accepted. Jasy jatere (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No one opposed your application, hence I have the pleasure of welcoming you as a new member of WP:SLR. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jasy, thanks for your support! PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:WLRoss Topic ban
The ban has left me confused. What was found disruptive? The only mention is where you say "Removing the (fact) tag, without adding a source is unacceptable" but you seem to have overlooked that it already had a source cited making the tag innapropriate without an explanation of why multiple sources were needed. To me and based on the editors previous behaviour, adding the tag seemed to be disruptive which I said in my comment. If the ban was for another diff then which one? Why was I not warned before WP:AE? Wayne (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In this diff, you said it was "unrealistic to find a source that actually says so many reference him". Removing fact tags on the basis that you consider it unrealistic to find a source that supports the content is completely unacceptable. Also, your comments here indicates that you're unwilling to work within community norms. Finally, you were notified of the case and warned about your conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the tag based on it being unrealistic. My comment says and supports that I removed it because the claim was already cited. The rest of the comment was informing the editor that it was unrealistic to find a source that says how many people reference him which does not imply a source that supports the content as that would be redundant in the content of it already having a source. As for the second diff, how does it show an unwillingness to work with the community? The editor claimed there was no source and I replied that WP policy allows normally unreliable sources to be used when they are reporting about themselves. He then warned me about implying he wanted to censor the article to which I replied that that was not my intention. BTW, I am not disputing the ban or asking for it to be overturned. I am willing to wear it. I need clarification on why the edits were unacceptable in the context of my actions after being warned as prior to being so warned I believed I was acting in good faith and also that in all the years I have edited the article I have never before been warned or reported which I believe should count in favour of being given warning before being reported considering the minor nature of the edits. Thx for your attention. Wayne (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I was warned but that was after I made the edits you quoted above. What I meant was why was WP:AE enforced for edits made before I was warned. I though policy was to warn then enact AE if the warning was not heeded. To do otherwise does not give an editor a chance to modify behaviour. Also you misinterpret those edits.


 * As you have not replied I have re-read the Arbitration descision to find the answer myself and noticed the following:"'Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.'"Please explain the mistake i made in misinterpreting this to mean that I should have been warned before making the edits I was sanctioned for. I hope you can clear this up for me. Thx. Wayne (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the problem is. From my perspective, you were notified of the case and warned about your conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify. I was warned after making the edits in question. I was then notified of the case four days later. I was banned although I never made any disruptive edits after being warned. The Arbitration descision, as I interpret it, says sanctions (a ban in my case) can be imposed "if, despite being warned" the editor continues with the bad behaviour. I need an explanation of how I am misinterpreting this as I'm confused. Thx. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Relisting Socks?
Hi Phil,

I'm not sure how to relist, but I believe that is another sock of 4GAR4. The IP made the same predudicial edits in March, and I didn't include it in my Sock report at the time. The user continues to edit the articles that got him into trouble in the first place Will Hansma and Gunter Rieger. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 02:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi DeadlyAssassin, I've blocked the IP for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4
Thank you for your support — BQZip01 —  talk 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports Legends Museum
Hi,

I work for Sports Legends Museum and would like to know why you keep deleted tehinformation I add to the Musuem's page?

Thank you in advanvce for your explaination.

TRich —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRich72 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TRich, at least some of the text you're adding is a copyright violation. For example, one of the paragraphs is sourced from http://www.baberuthmuseum.com/pagebank/index.html?id=177. I left a note on your talk page about this. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sussing forward motion at ARS
''I think you should recognize that recent conduct by members has caused a reaction. I'm suggesting you select a coordinator from the existing membership to prevent this happening in future. and Another solution would be to select a moderator from the existing members who'll remove canvassing notices and counsel those involved about the correct role of the squadron.''


 * I want to better understand the issues and possible solutions. This seems to be addressing canvassing concerns of people posting non-NPOV appeals on the talkpage. Does that sum it up? If not I'd like to address each bit individually so actionable ideas can ensue.

IMHO, there has been a heightened if not hyper-reaction to percieved canvassing posts. Some have a rather broad definition of canvassing which I think plays into the problem but I think we can agree that the very perception that it may be canvassing and then reacting to it is causing issue.

Instead of a "canvassing cop" I think a more organic solution would be a guideline on how to approach alleged incidents much like we have at Canvassing. Funny, what I had advocated all along is right there. Civilly engaging an editor who has clearly canvassed and ensure they understand what's up. The rub is that some have a definition of canvassing - and are eager to argue on it - that is much broader than what is currently on offer. Here is an example where I was accused of canvassing. An RfC ensued because of this where TfDs were officially made a part of ARS. It may make sense to have a group of ARS regulars who would each assist in dealing with talkpage canvassing patrol so the more confrontational editors weren't needed to assist on that. I'm open though, what are your thoughts on all of it? -- Banj e b oi   17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Benjiboi, thanks for your thoughtful post. I think with any wikidrama things get blown out of proportion, and obviously this has happened to some extent here. I guess that I probably share some of the blame for this wikidrama, along with others, on both sides of the debate. Anyway, in my humble opinion, if there was greater self-regulation of the squadron, in particular, guiding editors towards improving articles, and away from anything that could be perceived as canvassing, that would be an improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And thanks for taking the time to step through it all. So, I have two proposals brewing; (i) a group of ARS regulars who would each assist in dealing with talkpage canvassing patrol aligning with Canvassing specifically addressing non-NPOV posts that may smack of canvassing; (ii) a survey of X number of recently-closed rescue-tagged AFDs looking for "hallow" !votes in any direction. All those identified (no regard to being ARS officially or not) as casting these types of votes get a friendly NPOV note regarding the futility in those activities.
 * Are these the two core areas and two reasonable short-term solutions that may address primary concerns? If not, what else should we consider addressing? -- Banj e  b oi   18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still would prefer coordinators over a panel, but I guess either would work ok. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!
sorry for that apparently "offensive" article! i appreciate your, and all the other admin's hard work! Wikipedia is a great source!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccergoalie11 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

haha just saw this! sorry!

 Soccergoalie11 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Deletion of Ruia's Information
Hi. Just wondering why some one would delete some information about one of the richest indian. you deleted it under "Ravi Ruia" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: and copyright infringement)

I was just wondering if one can delete Bill gates or some one Else's profile under same section as most of the time anything written about anyone looks like some marketing.

Also, it wold have been better if you had updated it with some better infromation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.242.10 (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was a copyright violation. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi, I noted on the editor assistance page that you're experienced in dispute resolution and was wondering whether you can help me decide what the most appropriate forum for dealing with a problem editor is, or whether to leave the matter alone altogether. Thanks. Alexrexpvt (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, you haven't enabled email, so either could you tell me who the other editor is, or could you enable email, and then send me the details? PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding. I decided to try making a complaint on ANI about the user, and that seems to be achieving some sort of consensus. The original problem was trying to work how to respond to a user who possibly has a COI, pushes a POV, is uncivil (but not necessarily in a way that would merit blocking: low-level incivility that stays below the radar), edits to make a point, exhibits strong ownership tendencies, rejects third opinions and the consensus, etc. Looked at in isolation no particular edit was that bad, but taken as a whole his editing was tendentious, and possibly disruptive. It didn't seem to fit neatly under any single aspect of the dispute resolution process. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sad Kermit image
I've updated the rationale. If this affects your vote, please strikethrough and amend accordingly. Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I have your help please?
Hello, I know you are a good admin, and I have come to you for your help. I edit and keep track of all the WNBA related pages here on wikipedia. I do a good job and I spend lots of time doing it. If you would, please look at pages like Connecticut Sun, Detroit Shock, Los Angeles Sparks, Phoenix Mercury, etc. Look on the "season-by-season records" section. They all have a similar table for the information. This table is modeled after NBA pages (like the Boston Celtics one). I think consistency on wikipedia is VERY VERY important. Recently, I changed the [[Utah Starzz] season records table over to this new version. A certain member changed it back saying he "liked it better the other way." Another veteran wiki member came in and explained that consistency is important and that the tables should all be the same on similar pages. This prevents confusion. The difficult member changed it back saying something to the effect of "I can do what I want, and I like it my way." I wrote on this user's talk page saying that consistency is important and that on wiki, it really does not matter what an individual member prefers. He wrote back on mine saying not to tell him what to do.

This may seem like a trivial problem, but as I said, consistency in an encyclopedia like wiki is very important and I was hoping I could have your help in this issue. If you cannot help me, can you direct me to someone who can? Thank you. The difficult user's name is

Look at my contribs. PAGES AND PAGES of WNBA edits. I care about this league. I care about wiki. Together, I make the WNBA archive on wiki amazingly better than it was before.

Thanks, Nickv1025 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

openWind as non notable software
Hi Phil,

Rather than recreate a page that you deleted I thought I would broach the subject with you directly. I admit to being biased as I am the author of openWind. I was also the originator and principle author of Garrad Hassan's WindFarmer for the first few years of its development. I grant that openWind is new but its user-base is growing at quite a rate and it is the talk of the wind resource assessment community in both Europe and North America. We have users on (almost) every continent as well as bankable consultancies and at least one of the world's biggest ( if not THE biggest) now switched to openWind. openWind is now accepted by several major financial companies and as well as supporting its development, AWS Truewind (one of if not the leading wind consultancy in North America) is now using the software for all its new projects.

openWind is a radical departure from other wind energy software in that it is open-source and we publish our algorithms and their derivation along with our software. For this reason, several researchers in various institutions are now wanting to contribute code and CRES (the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources in Greece) has just offered to donate their CFD code which is the subject of several notable research papers in our industry.

For my guidance, when would you consider such a piece of software to be notable please?

Thanks,

Nick Nicholasmrobinson (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: File:Christina de Souza.jpg
Hi Phil. Were you aware that the image depicted the character, rather then the actress? Your deletion summary left me a bit confusing. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture on user:chaoscar page
what else could i add to the information on my picture to stop people deleting it? can u help please as i added a lot of info but it still gets deleted?!?!?!!? v confused —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoscar (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Chaoscar, you need to release the image under a free license such as gfdl or cc-by-sa-3.0. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration
I wanted to make you aware that ArbCom has formally thanked you for your time and efforts with the Ireland collaboration project: Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. I also wanted to extend my personal thanks to all three of you for the hard work you put into it. If at some point I could be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Thank you again and best wishes! --Vassyana (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of Superninjakatmanofeditorialninjakats
Hey, PhilKnight! My friend, the ninja kat, has been rather stupid. However, I don't think that an indefinite block should be put in place, seeing as the only vandalized article was my talk page. His other contributions (however few) have been constructive. If you agree, or disagree, please respond to my talk page. I will try harder to keep him from getting into such trouble again next time.

Cheers! --  W y a t t   9 1 5   ✍  23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! If he gets into any more trouble, feel free to block him for a week or so, and I'll talk to him.  --   W y a t t   9 1 5   ✍  23:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

SLDRA
AFAICR this list refers to a mediation case in 2007 (?). I am not really sure whether it makes a lot of sense to reject this agreement when you were not involved; you are definitely not required to take a stance on this one. Just wanted to point this out in case you felt that you had to choose a camp. Not being in any of the three categories is perfectly fine. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Jasy, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that I.P.
Thank you for blocking I.P. address 24.149.222.5. I do use that I.P. address at school, and this morning, I was checking to see if the jerks at Tomball High School were vandalising again, and when I checked the I.P.'s talk page, there was what I expected, a long block. But NO; I know better than to vandalise Wikipedia. I do use that I.P. mentioned above, but I only edit Wikipedia with that I.P. to correct mistakes. Like I said, I'm glad that I.P. was blocked; the students at my school obviously have no life... Thanks.--70.240.227.128 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Chris