User talk:PhilKnight/Archive63

Chris Bosse
dear phil i really dont understand why you revert genuine improvements to the site chris bosse? it may not be perfect but adding updated information which is important and genuine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.59.225 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you establish consensus on the talk page, instead of reverting. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I dont appreciate being blocked from wiki by you. Also I dont understand it. I fixed many articles and spend many hours fixing articles. Explain why I have been blocked because I did take it as an insult. If it was for my edits on Pakistan page. It is completely false. I made good addition to the site but nationalist Pakis reverted these additions. Also I put it on the discussion after and then I found myself blocked. Explain?
 * Suggest we continue this discussion at WP:ANI. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

217.23.230.137
Thanks for sorting out 217.23.230.137. Obviously not wholly committed to serious editing. I was going to try to have a look later but I don't think I could keep up with their output! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re User:Armenia150china184 reported at AIV
While you were warning the above editor, I was swinging the banhammer. I have advised A150c184 that they are indef blocked, and to avoid confusion I removed the various welcomes, requests and warnings and replaced them with a template and my comments. Although I am often willing to undo my actions, in this matter I would rather the editor make an unblock request and allow an independent third party to review it. I would also comment that I do not block usually unless there are the correct sequence of warnings - but my view is that any attempt at dissuading them was likely to be ignored; I would not be surprised if this was a throwaway account. I shall watchlist this page for any response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Volunteer
Hey! I'd like to volunteer at Mediation Cabal, so I can help effectively resolve the backlog of cases. (I hope my volunteering can shorten the waiting time a bit.) Are there any requirements to be a volunteer mediator? Also, is there a place that lists all the volunteers? If not, I'd be willing to create one. Thanks. Netalarm 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Netalarm, new mediators are always welcome, and we certainly have a backlog at the moment. We don't have any set criteria for mediators, however some experience of editing is beneficial. I've had a brief look at your edits, and you seem to have more than enough experience. Currently there isn't a list of mediators, we just use Category:Wikipedians in the Mediation Cabal, which has the advantage of being self-maintaining. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinkgirl34
The user has indicated, in response to dialogue initiated in response to her unblock request, what constructive edits s/he'd like to make. What are your thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Feel free to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 2 – July 2009
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. Delivered automatically by --  Tinu  Cherian BOT  - 15:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MY information -no copyright infringement
A week or so ago you deleted a newly submitted page - Oakbrook Preparatory School.The page was deleted because the same information appears on privateschoolreview.com. There is no copyright infringement here because I submitted the information to both sites - Wikipedia and privateschoolreview. The information is OAKBROOK's, not theirs. It is simply descriptive information about our school. Can we have our page back? Dawnrollins (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dawn, I suggest you have a look at Donating copyrighted materials, and in particular, the Granting us permission to copy material already online section, which should hopefully explain the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bay Bridge Troll image
I am totally bamboozeled as to how to use the talk page. Is this correct? You deleted an image from the Bay Bridge Troll page and I don't understand why? I have permisson from the photographer and got the image from his publisher at Carquinez Press as part of a press kit. What gives?

Ian Forry


 * Hi Ian, the image was deleted under this speedy delete criterion - no evidence of permission. The problem is that you haven't provided any evidence that you have permission. Acceptable evidence normally consists of either a link to the source website where the free license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Input requested...
I an considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese People page edit war
Two users keep deleting entire passages in the Genetic Studies section claiming that my sources are not verifiable. My sources are the most detailed of the entire genetic studies section and they are studies conducted by the University of Stanford. Need your help to stop the vandalism and edit war. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Edwards Scholar, thanks for your note, and I've added the article to my watchlist. At this stage, my advice is to establish consensus on the talk page, before reinserting the material. If that doesn't work, I'd suggest some form of dispute resolution. Also, you could consider requesting expert advice from WikiProject Genetics. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

better choice of words?
About the blockage you recently placed upon me: "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." Considering that it was "constructive contributions" that started my feud with User:Collectonian in the first place, aren't these words a tad patronizing? Cheers.--Marktreut (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Marktreut, the wording was from template:uw-block1, and if you think the wording could be improved, I suggest you post on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil, can you offer your thoughts on this message he left me after his block expired. I'm getting rather tired of his leaving abusive messages on my talk page despite some multiple editors explaining to him why his "contributions" were rejected. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 13:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Collectonian, it obviously wasn't appropriate, and I agree with the warning given by Vicenarian. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing in Wiki projects
Hi, Phil,

Thanks for your invitation. I am a freelance Technical Writer in India and love to do editing and content writing. I am yet to understand Wiki's rules and regulations. I shall do my best to rise up to your expectation. Chinnottakaran (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with returning IP
The blocked editor is back under another IP and has reverted my edits at List of Jewish-American mobsters once again. 72.74.195.207 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please Help - Suspected Sockpuppets of 72.74.195.207

This is persistent vandalism

Suspected Sockpuppets of 72.74.195.207


 * Special:Contributions/71.184.55.11
 * Special:Contributions/71.184.43.212
 * Special:Contributions/71.184.46.252
 * Special:Contributions/71.184.49.28
 * Special:Contributions/71.126.142.44
 * Special:Contributions/71.246.120.113
 * Special:Contributions/72.74.198.46
 * Special:Contributions/72.74.209.246
 * Special:Contributions/72.74.218.37
 * Special:Contributions/72.74.223.106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.32.40 (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice with dispute requested!
Hi Phil

I was wondering if you would provide some advice/mediation to a dispute I am currently having with an editor, --Legolas. It involves the article Miles Away. I recently thought two sentences in the lead were inappropriate, were poorly written and were not particularly encyclopedic - ("Miles Away" has been critically appreciated for being a harmonious ballad speaking of true feelings. The song is considered one of the finer moments from Hard Candy and has been compared to Justin Timberlake's 2006 single "What Goes Around.../...Comes Around"). I deleted it, and it was reverted by Legolas. I think I may have deleted it once more, and eventually I re-considered and re-wrote the sentence to remove the somewhat flowery language. Again, it was reverted by Legolas. What I have a problem with is he gives no reason for the reversion, and is constantly sending me messages saying I will be blocked if I continue to change his edits. He is being aggressive, uncooperative and it is impossible to work with him. He seems to be exerting ownership over the article, when all I want to do is improve what I think is one weak sentence in the article. Is it possible to have a word with him? What do you suggest is my next course of action? He is constantly sending me threats of reporting me and blocking me, which I cannot think is acceptable when I have only changed a single sentence in good faith.

Any help would me much appreciated - and please let me know if I am in the wrong! Paul75 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul, I guess my first move would be to add fact tags to the sentences, leave it for a week, and then remove them if they're still unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've tried that - he just removed them straight away. Paul75 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining - I've left a note on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrrain-ViewGlobe
Please delete an protect the talk page as well. Despite your warning, the user did it again.— Dæ dαlusContribs 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. PhilKnight (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Nominations/PhilKnight
Hello PhilKnight. I'm pleased to tell you that I've just closed your nomination to join the Mediation Committee as successful. Let me be the first to pass on my congratulations and to say that I'm looking forward to working with you. If you give me a few minutes, I'll subscribe you to the mailing list. Kind regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked spammer returns
Firstly congratulations on the above.

I am bemused that User:Chacufc whom you blocked indefinitely two days ago for spamming a political party news sheet of no encyclopaedic value has replaced this link on Egremont, Cumbria, after being unblocked by Pastor Theo in spite of launching a personal attack on you. Meanwhile I have been warned for edit warring for removing the link, which I regard as reverting vandalism when it is inserted after warnings and polite explanations. Am I wrong here? Pastor Theo says we should discuss this, but spam is spam however much it is discussed. A whole bunch of meat puppets might appear to vote for it but it is still spam. How should I proceed?--Charles (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles, I'm equally bemused by Paster Theo's involvement. However, I recommend you obtain a third opinion. PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr. Knight, you get bemused very easily! :) Though it appears that after your latest block, your Chacufc has thrown in the towel and left the project...for now at least. It seems that Egremont, Cumbria is temporarily safe from unwanted links. It's all kind of silly, if you ask me -- though it would seem from the comments here, no one asked me to comment. :P Pastor Theo (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello. I have been having trouble with the Alexander Mashkevitch article and I'm not sure about how I need to proceed. I found mention of you here: Editor assistance, and I believe you have done some minor edits to this article. Would you be willing to listen to the concerns I have over this article? 141.163.196.7 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I'd be delighted to help. Following a brief look at the article history and talk page, I gather that an editor keeps reverting to a poorly formatted version. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is also (in my opinion) largely promotional. I understand the version I prefer has its problems and I would like to improve it when I get the chance but Sbakuria doesn't discuss his/her issues on the talk page. I've left messages with Sbakuria, but to no avail it would seem. What is the best way of proceeding. I have requested assistance at the BLP message board, but have heard nothing for the past 5 days. Should I wait a little longer before proceeding and perhaps leave the article alone for now? Thankyou for your kind assistance 141.163.196.7 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider a request for comment on user conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll do this tomorrow, signing off for now. 141.163.196.7 (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am 141.163.196.7, I think I need to be logged in to create a RFC, so I'll leave another message for Sbakuria under this user name, give it a day or two and then make the RFC. How do I properly demonstrate that I am 141.163.196.7? In the interests of honesty, I think it's important that I do so.Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could log out and leave a note on user talk:141.163.196.7. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the RFC, Requests for comment/Sbakuria. I hope I've done it correctly. I think another user needs to certify it. Rtdixon86 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-existent page?
These images: File:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg, File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg, File:Old Gregg.jpg, File:The-Spirit-Of-Jaz.jpeg, File:Thehitcher2.jpg, "File talk:The-Spirit-Of-Jaz.jpeg, most certainly were used in an article. You didn't read the note that was above the CSD tag of each image.

The nominator removed the images from the article List of recurring characters from The Mighty Boosh, making them "orphans", and reverted and threatened to block anyone who put them back in the article - which is highly suspect. Therefore, the images were orphaned because an admin decided to abuse his privileges and keep them out of the article by brute force. When asked - repeatedly - how the images violated NFCC 3 or 8, he could not give a cogent response - see this discussion on the article's talk page. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  16:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Radiopathy, I've opened separate discussions for the images at WP:FFD. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for clarification: Is that a procedural nom, or are you accepting that they should be deleted? Jheald (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, in my understanding of the Non-free policy, they all could be deleted, because the rationales provided are inadequate, especially in regard to lack of explanation as to how the images add significantly to the reader's understanding. I appreciate the editors arguing the image should be kept would strongly contest this, however a typical example is File:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg, which has a five line rationale. The first line appears to be completely irrelevant. The second, third, and fourth lines are necessary components. The fifth line has three clauses, the first clause is a necessary component, however, the second clause is mostly wrong; just because an image isn't replaceable, that doesn't achieve an end run around the requirement of significantly adding to the reader's understanding. The final clause is woefully inadequate, and doesn't begin to explain why this image is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since posting this comment, the rationale has been slightly improved. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Montefiore Windmill
Hi, please see WP:ANI where the removal of cited information in the Montefiore Windmill article has been raised. Both User:Gilabrand and User:No More Mr Nice Guy have removed referenced information from the article. I believe you are familiar with these two editors from Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Can the Montefiore Windmill article be said to fall under the remit of that case? Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mjroots, thanks for letting me know, and I've added the page to my watchlist. I'm not sure if the WP:ARBPIA restrictions would apply, but hopefully discussion on the talk page will establish consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like NMMNG is suffering from WP:IDONTHEARYOU. The usage of the alternative name is entirely in accordance with WP:LS. I have managed to find an independant example of the disputed usage but that doesn't seem to satisfy him. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NMMNG has again removed the alternative name from the article, claiming "no consensus". Should I revert him and issue a warning for vandalism, or leave this in your hands? The issue seems to have dropped off WP:ANI but is not showing in the archives. Mjroots (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mjroots, I'd certainly avoid considering his edit vandalism - I think you should consider this a good faith dispute. If talk page discussion is deadlocked, then I 'd suggest using dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * HI, the reason given was no consensus. Before it was removed, the consensus was that it should be in the article (three editors involved in initial creation of article and subsequent discussion of my additions). What is being discussed is the removal of the alternative name, not it's inclusion. So far there are two in favour (myself and tiamut) and two against, therefore there is no consensus for the removal of the alternative name, which I believe should be kept for reasons previously stated. Will take this to DR as suggested. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've alerted all three WPs that there is an issue. Hopefully more input from other editors will settle this. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my alleged bad conduct over at the dreamhost talkpage
I want to bring some matters to your attention regarding the dreamhost talkpage and the editing done there by user scjessey,


 * 11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."
 * 00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"
 * 16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"
 * 20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.
 * 01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"
 * 01:58, 7 April 2009 "Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate."
 * 02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."
 * 02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."
 * 02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"
 * 03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."
 * 04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."
 * 21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

All of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215.

Also I would like to bring to your attention that this user once attempted to recruit meat puppets to the article and performed what you could call edits on request on the article and I want to ask you is it really appropriate that you mess with me instead of telling this guy to back off from editing an article that he CLEARLY has forgone his right to edit?

Thanks for your time and such, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wylie draper
I saw that you protected the title Wylie Draper from re-creation. Someone has been repeatedly creating an article at Wylie draper (presumably the same someone creating the same article that was previously deleted from the proper title); you may want to protect that title as well. Propaniac (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. PhilKnight (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Greshoops
Hi PhilKnight. I noticed you blocked User:Greshoops. Looking at that user's talk page history, they have never received any warnings for vandalism. Maybe a 4im warning would have been more appropriate in this case. Just saying... Cheers,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lines, Vines and Trying Times
That looked like a situation where no one was a saint, so I'm not going to argue with you protecting the page. I will encourage you to look a little harder at, though. Starting an edit-war like that as his first edit coming off a week-long block warrants a fresh block in my view. I'm getting frustrated with Pokerdance as well: he has the meager advantage of having been right (King007ofrock was inserting bad sources and strange formatting), but I've had several talks with him about edit-warring. SchnitzelMannGreek isn't usually any trouble. I think Pokerdance is at final-warning stage, and SchnitzelMannGreek probably deserves a direct comment.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Kww, thanks for the prompt, I agree King007ofrock's recent blocks for disruptive editing are enough to justify another block, so I've undone the protection. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No use leaving a stern warning for Pokerdance, though: he stepped right into it on another article, and is blocked for 55 hours.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)