User talk:PhilKnight/Archive67

SatansHelper666
You blocked him yesterday, but he's back and up to the same old vandalism (in the Mary Baker Eddy article. I'm not sure what to do (or who to contact) at this point.  It's gotten way out of hand, and I don't believe he's willing to even enter into reasonableness.  I'm sorry to be a pain. -- Digitalican (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned User:Gibraltarian evading your earlier block
Phil, you blocked User:Gibraltarian for block evasion via 212.120.243.128 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Unfortunately he's back and now using 212.120.246.81 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) to continue his campaign of vandalism. Could you please do the necessary? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I've blocked the IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking Gibraltar IP's
Be aware that most of the ADSL IP's are allocated from a pool, so in order to avoid a block, the user simply has to drop the connection and get another. However, a block of a day or so is likely to get the message across without inconveniencing anyone unduly - not that there are many active editors using gibtelecom currently anyway. I think this user does it more to make a point that he is still alive and to piss off ChrisO than any expectation of changing the articles. --Gibnews (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion backlog template
Hey Phil, I noticed that you were the one who originally added the deletion backlog table to. I had modeled a similar template on Commons to that, but it's not quite the same I don't think. It can be found at Commons:User:Killiondude/sandbox. In the "Category:Media without a license" drop down box, October 13's category link is still there as a redlink. Is that supposed to happen? Also, since it is currently October 21 in UTC, shouldn't it be showing October 14's subcats in all 3 drop downs? If you're not the right person to ask, perhaps you could point me in a certain direction? Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Killiondude, my guess, based on Commons:Category:Media without a license, is there aren't any images for that day, so the category wasn't created. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a (created) category for that day, but it was cleared so I deleted the (empty) category. I don't believe that the enwiki template/table shows redlink'd category days, that's why I was asking. I've purged my sandbox page, and the templates that make it up, to no avail. Killiondude (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realize. I guess there could be a difference in the Mediawiki software? PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using unblock request as forum
Thought you might want to take another quick look at User talk: 70.90.107.66. Thought this was interesting way of advoiding block. :-/ &spades; B.s.n.   &hearts; R.N.  13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind looks like you've already seen and taken care of it. Have a good morning &spades; B.s.n.   &hearts; R.N.  13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Carlos Vidal Bolado
Hello PhilKnight, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Carlos Vidal Bolado - a page you tagged - because: has played with Dizzy Gillespie; coverage in reliable sources. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh,  barbarian  15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Skomorokh, stating the obvious, I tagged the article, instead of just deleting it, because I wanted another admin to have a look. Anyway, thanks for your note - I've tidied the article up slightly. Incidentally, you can't use a search engine as a reference. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-block!
Greetings PhilKnight - a year ago to the day you blocked User talk:70.169.246.2 for a year. S/he/they are back at it.--Technopat (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Warnings are nice. It's quite possible that, 1 year later, it's not the same person and whoever made that single vandalism edit has no knowledge of our policies. At the very least, a few warnings would be appropriate before we block again. My two cents... Frank  |  talk  21:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the message left by Frank, there's been more vandalism, so I've left another warning. I'll issue a block if the vandalism continues. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being out there an' keeping an eye on things! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Water Sports

 * I know your name is down, but the project had fallen by the wayside - so i'm trying to rejeuvinate it Happysailor  (Talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete
Thank for the quick update on the speedy delete PhilKnight. Best Darigan (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard Article
I greatly appreciated your input in the past. I do not know whether the mediation process being derailed was a result of people suspecting that there was a significant amount of sockpuppetry going on. I suspect so. Many of the users that the sockpuppet editor was using were used against my efforts. (He was actually was a fan of another artist - so he was not unbiased - and a guitarist that apparently did not understand rhythm and the dgegree of LR's impact.) If you have the interest I would greatly appreciate any feedback / input you might have to help make the Little Richard article more encyclopedic. I have been inserting a lot of information which I believe is relevant. The article was severely lacking and contained a lot of unsourced information. It has much improved recently.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please consider reblocking User:Ludvikus
I don't know if it's the same disruptive editing that led to the 2008 block, but he's certainly engaging in disruptive editing now. Could you explain your reasoning, or point to discussion sections where the arguments were presented? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Arthur, there was a discussion here, however if the unblocking hasn't worked out, then I don't object to reblocking the account. Given there was a discussion on WP:ANI, I guess I'd prefer if the reblock was proposed on the same noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please extend User:Jasonandtheargonautsmovie2's block to an indefinite one
This user's MO has been to create articles that only have a copy of the Welcome template, the same as users User:Simoanstrength and User:Nicenwonderful. Based on this I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of the aforementioned editors and as such should be blocked indefinitely. Best, TheLetterM (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi TheLetterM, I've extended the block to indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
As the unblocking admin, maybe you should pitch in there. This is, what, the third major drama thread in the month since unblocking, and it is abundantly clear that Ludvikus has violated the promises he made in the unblock request. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up -- I didn't notice the thread above at first, but in my opinion it would be proper for you to assume responsibility here, since you are the one who unblocked early. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Looie496, thanks for the posts. I agree about the amount of time being spent - the 3rd item in User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is possibly relevant. In the ANI thread, Ludvikus seems to lack understanding of the behavioral policies, for example he argues that Arthur Rubin has to earn the right to have good faith assumed. In this context, unless someone is prepared to attempt mentorship, I'm leaning towards a reblock. I'll post on ANI shortly. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Restore: 3XX
I'm not a regular contributor or editor at wikipedia, so please excuse me if there is a prodcedure I miss.

I would like to ask that the 3XX wikipedia page be restored.

There has been some discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3XX about whether the page should have been deleted.

As a former volunteer broadcaster on the station, I argue that it should be returned, to explain the history of the station during it's operating years and it's downfall.

The announcement of the station going off-air was made on Jock's Journal - This website (and it's twice monthly publication) is very popular within the Australia Radio Industry.

The link to the page which had the article is http://web.archive.org/web/20080822022848/http://www.jocksjournal.com/

Also (I am struggling to find the old link!) Radioinfo.com.au - which is Australia's MOST POPULAR website for those in the radio industry, reported on the news.

Mediaspy, Surfnet and the Google Group aus.radio.broadcast also reported on the demise.

The station was a nice, but known station in Melbourne - if you wish I can try and track down and scan articles talking about 3XX in the VFL (Victorian Football League) record. 3XX use to broadcast the VFL in it's last 2 years - which is Australia's OLDEST Football Compeition.

If you require any further information, please post here. When the 3XX page is restored I'll chance down more links to show the relevance of 1611 AM 3XX to the Melbourne radio landscape.

(PS> Some people struggled to find 3XX on the ACMA website. Though not longer there, it was not a commercial, community or narrow-caster - it was actually a 'narrow-band' station. Similar to the 'Section 40, Non-BSB stations')

Peter Holden. Former 3XX Volunteer Broadcaster Ex-Commercial Radio Broadcaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.170.237 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, looking at the discussion, I still consider there was a consensus to delete, so in order to restore the article there would have to be a discussion at Deletion Review. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for 3XX
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 3XX. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guest9999 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Guest9999, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vand
Hi, could you please delete this? Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 11:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

82.198.140.206
This IP is the fourth or fifth different IP address that the same disruptive editor has used on the Martin Bayly page, and I have previously asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Regards, GiantSnowman 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Re-Write
Hello, Thanks for your input on D.G.E. Hall. The editor asked for help re-writing it, and I agreed to help. I was wondering what your input is/was before we start the overhaul. Tim1357 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, I added the rewrite tag, because of the use of an abbreviated style. For example:
 * "Early 1919, senior history master at Royal Grammar School, Worcester"
 * probably should be rewritten along the lines of:
 * "In early 1919, he became the senior history master at Royal Grammar School, Worcester".
 * PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so its not so much an overhaul as tweaking the wording? Tim1357 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworded the article, changed some formatting, and removed the tag. Take a look. Tim1357 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Looking at rewrite, there's an option of giving a reason why the rewrite is needed, so I guess I'll use that in future to avoid confusion. Anyway, thanks for your involvement. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow....
Wow dude you are good!!!!

I literateraly posted that artical a few minutes before you deleted it!!!

Nice job!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtreme-anarchy (talk • contribs) 15:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation interest
I saw that you are one of the coordinators on the mediation cabal page. I am interested in helping out on wikipedia, though i am a newbie, and I believe that the mediation process would be a good fit for me. What is required to become a member of the mediation cabal and what is required as part of the position? Thanks Reubzz (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Reubzz, there aren't any formal requirements, although having some experience of editing articles is usually a good idea. If you wanted, you could mediate a case along side a more experienced mediator. Also, the suggestions for volunteers page could be useful. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Witchfinder General (band)
Can you please help to defuse the edit war on the Witchfinder General (band) page, and all related articles? Witchfinder General is a British heavy metal band which recently reformed without their original singer, Zeeb Parkes. Editor DanFord2 continues to add unsourced, opinionated commentary describing the new WG lineup as a "rip off". I have never heard such sentiments expressed by anyone, however he claims his opinion is backed up by Youtube comments. He changes references to the band to the past tense, even though the band is currently active. He continually lauds original singer Parkes' contribution to the band. He lists Parkes in the "current band members" infobox as a "founding member" even though Parkes quit the band 25 years ago. His edits are filled with grammatical errors. Several editors have attempted to delete or correct his edits and he persistently reverts them. User DanFord2 has made no other edits to Wikipedia other than to articles relating to Witchfinder General. If you can help out, thank you very much. In my opinion, the Witchfinder General (band) page should simply contain (accurate) information about Witchfinder General, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrarie (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Murrarie, I've given DanFord2 a 7-day block. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Phil. You mean Dancewithme2 was actually a sockpuppet of DanFord2? Wow, I never would have guessed.... Murrarie (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil, sorry to bother you again about this edit war, or to sound as obsessive about it as DanFord2. DanFord2 appealed his block. His appeal was declined, however I am convinced that he will stop at nothing to add his negative opinions to the pages of Witchfinder General and Witchfinder General records. Was hoping I might clarify a few things.

I am a frequent browser of Wikipedia who rarely edits. The IP address DanFord2 mentioned was Indeed me, however that was not an attempt to hide or engage in sockpuppetry, I simply edited without bothering to log in.

I am a fan of Witchfinder General, along with countless other metal bands. I had simply looked at the WFG page and was surprised by the negative commentary. I have never heard anything negative about the band reforming, most fans are thrilled by it. I also noticed that his edits had been deleted several times by other editors, and he had always reverted them. So I deleted them myself and thus the edit war.

DanFord2 states that there is little information supporting his comments, aside from Youtube. I looked at Witchfinder General related videos on Youtube to see if I could find such comments. There are indeed negative comments on Youtube, ALL of them posted by the same person. I am 100% certain that these Youtube comments were also posted by DanFord2, as the wording and content is exactly the same. So in effect, DanFord2 is trying to add opinionated content to Wikipedia, claiming his sources to be Youtube comments that he himself posted.

I also searched Google and Yahoo to see if I could find any independent evidence of this so-called controversy surrounding the Witchfinder General reunion. Nothing, not a shred. There are many articles and reviews about Witchfinder General on the internet, but absolutely nothing that faults the band for reforming without the original singer. There is no evidence of even a single person sharing DanFord2's opinion.

Again, sorry to keep bothering you with this. However, it is obvious that DanFord2 is someone with some sort of former involvement with the band who is on a crusade to discredit them. And he is trying to use Wikipedia to do it. Please keep and eye on the WFG pages if possible. Perhaps they should even be protected if he continues.

Thank you very much for your time Murrarie (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

209.142.141.131
Shouldn't this block be longer?  Enigma msg 18:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Enigma, if you want to increase the duration of the block, then go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Asian Americans
I am seeking to include both Vanessa Hudgens and Norah Jones' photos in the Asian Americans infobox, and I am requesting you to support thsat decision. I believe that the presence of their photos in the Filipino American and Indian American infoboxes warrant the inclusion in the article. I would also like to point out that I am currently blocked but this rule ([|This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user,]) allows me to continue to edit anonymously. May I also request you to disregard any more sockpuppetry cases against me because I am already technically "banned" and I believe that their reason is mostly out of spite (User:Elockid) rather tha actually helping the project.-23prootie (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.108.50.25 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Badboy
HI, Today i started working on my Bio Page - "Badboy" (my stage name in seduction community, but It was speed-deleted by you shortly after. So I wonder, since I haven't attacked anyone, but I just want to create a page with my BIO info and my photo, what can I do & what should I do? I run BadboyLifestyle company, and I have copyright for it. things. Please help. thx. Dan/Badboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badboylifestyle (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
User talk:216.136.10.194 needs to be banned again for repeated vandalism. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi TFI, thanks for letting me know, however another admin has already given them a 2-year block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Likebox block review
I normally post an addendum to the user page for any reviewing admins, but I forgot in this case. My block was in response to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents; I don't know if you were aware of this thread, but if not, my apologies for not making all the relevant information available, and double apologies if my oversight has affected your decision (though looking at your summary, I think perhaps not). EyeSerene talk 13:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi EyeSerene, thanks for informing me of the ANI thread. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say: get Likebox to agree to stick to 1 RR and then unblock him.

In the previous case when Likebox was seen to behave in a disruptive way when pushing for his proof of Gödel's theorem, he was placed on this probation:

At that time, I argued that this is vague and would make Likebox vulnerable to wiki lawyering edit warriors. This seems to have happened in this case. It is true that Likebox should have reverted less often, but this is not like the previous case where Likebox was editing against a clear consensus (the consensus comprising of all the editors except Likebox). In this case Jayjg's behavior is not ok. at all. Also there exists a difference of opinion that exists independent of Likebox.

In case of the article by Gödel, there were no problems other than Likebox's POV. There it was like Likebox coming along and the problem starts, Likebox goes away and the problem goes away. The probation is meant to make Likebox aware of this sort of dynamics where his POV and pushing for is the cause of the problem. I think Likebox editing history shows that he is not behaving in this problematic way anymore on the math pages.

In case of WP:ESCA this sort of dynamics is not at play at all. I think that Jayjg may have been exploiting Likebox's probation to get an opponent out of the way. Count Iblis (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Count Iblis, I agree, if Likebox agrees to stick to 1RR, then I'd support unblocking him. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got no issue with that. EyeSerene talk 22:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

IP block exemption
Thank you for granting me this feature. I've gone through the IP_block_exemption, but still couldn't understand if I'm to be responsible for contributions which don't belong to my registered account but share the same IP. I think it doesn't make sense that I do so, and I guess that's what should be clarified in that policy. I may not have understood it well but hope it means that I will be assessed by my registered account performance and not by IP activities.--Email4mobile (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Email4mobile, no problem, and you're only responsible for your own edits. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812 Discussion on the mediation cabal page
Howdy! I have just put up a section from the discussion page of the war of 1812 on to the Mediation Caba page - but it doesn't seem to be appearing under the new open case heading - am I missing something? Not sure If I have negelected a step or note. Cheers! 114.76.87.223 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

24.173.92.65
I noticed that you left a warning on. You might want to read the message I left to Harryzilber regarding the sequence of events regarding this IP as it appears you left a warning for the IP based upon Harryzilber's WP:AIV report. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)