User talk:PhilKnight/Archive61

RfA thanks
Mifter (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there, I have been looking over some of the older cases at WP:MEDCAB, as well as some of the cases that are currently open. I have been here around a month or so, and I was wondering if it was possible to get involved with the Mediation Cabal. Also, if you could give any advice, that would be great :) MacMed talkstalk 19:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost mediation
I was hoping you might be able to offer some advice that might break the deadlock here. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kendrick7
Why did you decline this user's request to be unblocked when the blocking admin stated that he would be unblocked albeit "with conditions" when he returned? Please review your decision, Kendrick was a valuable editor. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi William, the request I declined indicated he wanted to leave, but also wanted to communicate with ArbCom, so I declined and suggested he send an email. I agree the blocking admin said that if he wanted to return, he could be unblocked, and I'm not objecting to that, nor am I disagreeing that he was a good editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Guenter Rieger
Hi Phil, He's baaack. User:205.250.111.144. Still editing the articles that he got into trouble with. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 05:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Case
I've just begun Mediation this case. Do you think I should request a page protection or not? Renaissancee (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Renaissancee, at the moment there isn't an ongoing edit war, although there is obviously an underlying dispute, so I don't think protection is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

MedCab
Hi there, I wanted to get your opinion on something. Should someone come up with a template to "deny" mediation, suggesting that the users take the issue to RfC, WP:3O, and other early dispute resolution measures before requesting mediation? Would that be used, or is it not really polite to deny mediation? Also, my apologies if this should be on Wikipedia Talk:Mediation Cabal. Feel free to move it if you wish. MacMed talkstalk 02:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MacMed, I don't think a template is required. For similar queries, as you suggest, I'd recommend posting on Wikipedia Talk:Mediation Cabal. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks very much! - eo (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion of JR Fun Big.gif
Hello Phil, User:MahaPanta has requested that the image you deleted be restored. Can you process the request. Jay (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comic panel rationale
Actually Phil, I think I've got the changes into Comic cover rationale with minimal disruption. Or is there something specific I'm missing?

- J Greb (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, I've looked in more detail, and I agree the template is still usable. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And Phil, this is an attempt to make sure full proper sourcing is presnet. Right now the template is not providing that.
 * - J Greb (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your above comment, or your last edit summary, but this style of rationale has been widely used for over a year without problems. Given there are several templates in this style, could you explain what you think the problem is? PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The up shot? As it was, the template left the article title as the end source of the material if there was no website involved. It becomes very, very hard to verify, or defend, an "original scan" without that. Even the images with URLs have problems if 1) the link dies, 2) the link is to a "just the image" page, 3) the link is to a "root" page w/o the image, and/or 4) the link has changed content.
 * That's was the major change. The remaining:
 * Licensing selection,
 * Clearing the license and it's auto cat off the template page, and
 * Forcing the ToC to show lower, if at all
 * Are minor... and, thinking it over, two of them are quite right as is. The switch should prevent the Licensing section from showing and something is nagging my memory about a "no ToC" magic word.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * or use to force it in the position you want Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... Right... Thanks. And that allows the messy coding to be cleaned up. - J Greb (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The way the template is at the moment, it allows for different article names and comic book covers, and I think this could lead to misuse. Also, I don't believe there is a necessity for license selection. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it could be misused, but I can see how the old version can provide false or misleading information. Just as a "for instance" Dick Grayson currently used the cover an issue of Nightwing in the infobox. If the old version of the template had been used to provide the FUR for that file, it would have had the description "Cover of Dick Grayson", something that would be, at best, less than correct.
 * Yes, the revised version of the template wants the editor to provide more information. But they are supposed to be doing that anyway. That's why the FUR template pieces balk, throw warning, and add maintenance cats if most of the fields are left empty.
 * As for the licensing... honestly, I'm not sure why it's there at all. As near as I can tell, the templates (cover and panel) exist for one of two reasons:
 * Quick completing an upload; or
 * Quick fixing a single use file that has been tagged with a deficit or non-existent FUR.
 * In the first case, the upload page has a pull down to select the appropriate license. In the later, more often than not there is already a license of some form already there, making one dropped by the template redundant.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The information you want to include could be easily added under a 'summary' heading, so I don't consider that to be a worthwhile reason to modify the template. Misuse could easily occur if editors start using templated rationales for situations where a custom rationale is required, so I disagree about allowing for different article names and comic book covers. Also misuse could easily occur if there is confusion over which license should be used with which template - this approach reduces confusion, so again I don't understand the imperative for making a change. As I've already said, this approach has been used on a whole set of similar templates for over a year, without problems, so I consider your reasoning for making these changes to be mistaken. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...could be easily added under a 'summary' heading..." If it were, I wouldn't be looking at the template as needing to be fixed.
 * As currently used, the template is being used in lieu of any other information. It is being placed as sufficient, which it is not.
 * You bring up a good point about the licensing templates. Now, could you eludicate as to what that is even dropped by the template to begin with? Or was it intended to be a "This is good enough to keep the image." fire and forget?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase 'to what that is even dropped' - I don't know what you're trying to say. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... that looked clear when I typed it... the line shoulde be:
 * "Now, could you eludicate as to why that [the licensing template] is even dropped by the template to begin with?"
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To reduce confusion, as I've already explained. Also, this approach has been used for well over a year on several different templates, and you're the first person to complain. I suggest you create a new template based around Logo fur. PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

References - Lovebugs (band)
Hi! Right now the article about Lovebugs is nominated for DYK. But there is some problems. The largest one is the lack of reliable sources.

I have 1 reliable source that could cover at least 80% of the text. But shall i put in the same reference after every sentence again and again and again or is there a better way to do it? Highest Heights (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Apo'strophe
I had logged into the account and changed the password. There was no email set to the account. Just to let you know.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More DreamHost
I noticed you closed Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-26/DreamHost. I am puzzled, because the article remains locked due to the ongoing dispute. Would you please explain your reason(s) for closing mediation on the DreamHost talk page? Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Scjessey, I've reopened the case. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Faux Rock because someone objected to it; now at AfD
I have removed the prod tag from Faux Rock, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Articles for deletion/Faux Rock, which overrides the need for a prod tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! --  At am a chat 17:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Atama, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

request for arbitration
Thanks for pointing that out, i moved the request. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike Jenkins (poet)
who you blocked as a vandalism only account on this article is back with a new account,. Could you just block the account please, rather than me wasting time going up through the warning levels? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi O Fenian, I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. O Fenian (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Username Concern
Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Dear Phil Knight

I can see where your concern comes from and I did not mean it in any way to be offensive or confusing.

As you have raised this issue, the name derives from the way that you play the piano (by plonking it), and as my pages will mainly be about pianos then I thought that I had chosen the name appropriately.

If you still see this as an unfit name then I will happily change it to a better one.

Thank-you

PianoplonkersPianoplonkers (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could change it so users in the future will not think of your name as disruptive particularly those who live in England. However, your edits are ok, so we know you have good intentions. But it is a confusing and somewhat disruptive name in a way as it is offensive in the British English language. My thoughts, you should change it for the reasons above, but it's up to you. --Brad Polard (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DreamHost
An article that you have been involved in editing, DreamHost, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/DreamHost_(2nd_nomination). Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Judas278 (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Judas278, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sookie_(TB).jpg
Can you help me to explain this file?--Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Aleksa, I've used a templated rationale. Could you have a look and see if what I've said is correct? PhilKnight (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Need more help on the ASA logo
Hi Phil thanks again for your help. Unfortunately ASA has asked that the blue bar underneath the logo be removed. I cannot figure out how to do it. Can you please help me again? 208.37.160.2 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've trimmed the logo. Hope it's ok now. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)
A poll is up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- BigDunc  Talk 20:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandwich (album)
According to Deletion review, I am supposed to contact the admin who deleted a page to discuss that deleted page's restoration. Sandwich (album) is under protection because it had been Repeatedly recreated, and during that time, it was an unsourced future album. Now the album has been released and infomration has been confirmed. I ask that the album please be unprotected and restored. I have a userpage (User:FallenWings47/Sandwich) with information taken directly from the album's booklet to create the new page. The band is notable, as is the album. FallenWings47 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi FallenWings47, I've unprotected, and merged the history. However, I recomend you add sources to the user space version before moving it. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thank you! FallenWings47 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)