User talk:PhilKnight/Archive75

Dev(singer)
Why was the page on Dev (singer) deleted? Could you put it back up please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.30.157 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted under the Proposed deletion of biographies of living people process, because it was unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

David A. Christian
Dear Mr. Knight, I was recently requested by a very good fiend of mine, Captain David A. Christian, U.S. Army Special Forces Retired to edit, correct, and update his biography on Wikipedia. I was given permission by David to reference his complete 201 File from the Department of the Army as well as his complete VA file. These are considered reliable references and contain very detailed information on that military member. I have used other references in his biography which include his college and university transcripts as well as U.S. Army General Orders. I also have other reliable sources to add but an individual by the name of Everard Proudfoot has deleted them by ignoring my request in regard to this matter. As a published writer and commissioned officer, I do know what reliable sources are. Can you help me in regard to this matter? I would like to complete the whole article (which will include photographs, certificates, and diplomas to name a few) but I believe that this individual will continue to delete it.

Respectfully Submitted-Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard Militaryhistorywriter (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)militaryhistorywriter


 * Hi Militaryhistorywriter, I've replied on your talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Knight,
 * Thanks for your quick response and advice. I've been given access to newspaper articles, magazine articles, The Congressional Record, and other sources for the article on David A. Christian.
 * Respectfully Submitted-Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard
 * Militaryhistorywriter (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)militaryhistorywriter

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Teibert
Hello. I work extensively on articles about North American soccer teams and players, and I recently tried to start a new page for the professional soccer player Russell Teibert, but saw that the page was deleted because of an "attack" in 2008. I would like to request un-protection of the page so I can create the page on this athlete. This is the person the article would be about: http://www.whitecapsfc.com/men/roster/players/russell_teibert.aspx. Many thanks! --JonBroxton (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --JonBroxton (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:New essay
A great idea. You're more than welcome to quote me- I'll be sure to add anything else I think of or come across. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Abhisit Vejjajiva
Thanks for helping protect the Abhisit Vejjajiva article from an edit war and some obviously NPOV opinions and weasel words. I've put a suggestion for some new material in the Discussion page that should hopefully make it to the article when temperatures cool down. Patiwat (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Abhisit Vejjajiva
hi phil, in light of your protection of the page and another users comment on my talk page, i just wanted to ask if i should have handled the situation differently. i wasn't trying to edit war, i thought it was acceptable to revert the user if his additions appeared to be POV and he had been reverted by another editor before. was i wrong in reverting his additions? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi WookieInHeat, in my humble opinion, the edits weren't vandalism, so I think it should be regarded as a content dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete List of fish on stamps of Australia?
It seems that the rest of the articles in Category:Lists of fish on stamps were deprodded. It seems likely to have been a simple mistake that Australia ended up deleted, while others such as Ras al-Khaimah, were kept. There's a longer discussion here. I don't know if there were others that you deleted, but I noticed the Australia one still has links pointing to it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article, however there isn't much content. If you want I'll delete the article again. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While notifying users about this, I also found List of fish on stamps of Oman, List of birds on stamps of Armenia, and List of fish on stamps of Ascension Island, which were deleted at the same time. Could you undelete these, too? Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What should I be doing?
Hello Phil. In the hopes of avoiding another ban I would like to ask you how I should deal with a certain issue. Following the Judea and Samaria vs West Bank arbcom case, a set of naming conventions were created to deal with the issue that resulted in a number of users being banned. A "new" user (who is very much in need of an ARBPIA notice) has recently gone around adding that a number of settlements are in "Shomron", the transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Samaria". I reverted those edits and opened a section on each talk page explaining why ( and talk, and talk,  and talk). Another user has reinserted the phrase without saying one word in their edit summary or on the talk page. What should be done here? Things that have been "settled" continually have to be re-"battled" over with the same people who dont even try to give the appearance of editing in good faith, not even giving the courtesy of an edit-summary explaining why they are reverting edits. What am I supposed to do in this situation? We already established a consensus on those naming conventions, that process was overseen by arbcom and editors routinely ignore it.  nableezy  - 14:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Nableezy, thanks for letting me know about Naming conventions (West Bank), I obviously knew about the second ARBPIA case, but was unaware that we now have an 'official' naming convention, which amazingly enough, is actually progress. Anyway, first user notified + advised, second user advised. Let me know if there are further problems. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, thank you. But there is still the problem of the article not abiding by the consensus established in those naming conventions. I agree, that was progress. But if a group of users can disregard them by sheer force of numbers on a particular article what should be done? You all have already convinced me not to continue to revert, that message has been received. But what should I do now to get the problem in the article solved?  nableezy  - 04:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A local consensus shouldn't be allowed to over-rule the wider consensus that resulted in the naming convention. All the editors involved have been notified, and if editors continue to ignore the wider consensus, bans can be issued. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time (Marty Stuart album)
You might want to revisit this AFD; someone found sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm obviously pleased that sources have been added, however I'm not entirely convinced there is significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

block of User: Libi Bamizrach
Your block was wrong for two reasons:
 * 1) You took a position on a content dispute at Talk:Karnei Shomron, which means you are not allowed to block a user who does not edit according to your position. And you certainly are not allowed to revert to your position and then protect the article.
 * 2) You failed to realize that Libi Bamizrach modified his edit according to your instructions, responding to you that he will modify his edit per your instructions. He then edited in accordance with your instructions by adding quotes. His new edit was unrelated to the discussion at the Karnei Shomron.

Please carefully review the circumstances surrounding the block.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil did not "take a position", his only actions there were in an administrative capacity. Libi's "modified edit" was against the naming conventions established for the West Bank and the user also repeatedly reverted without writing one word on the talk page. This game of crying out that every admin is "involved" and cannot do anything is tiring.  nableezy  - 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I corrected your misunderstanding, which doesn't constitute taking a position, and secondly, I'm fully aware that Libi included quotes. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as odd that after a bit of prodding from Nableezy, you hammer Libi with a 48-hr block over a content dispute and those who represent opposing views and have engaged in identical conduct as the sanctioned editor are left untouched. Strange indeed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't a naming convention, then you'd be correct. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @phil. Please elaborate on why you decided to block Libi after he told you he will edit to conform with your wishes and did so. and nobody has yet to explain how his latest edit was in any way violative of the naming guidelines.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, nobody explained that? Really?  nableezy  - 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that there was a misunderstanding with respect to "naming conventions." It could be subject to varying interpretations if liberally constructed. Certainly not a reason to impose such a harsh sanction for a first "offense" by a new user.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The user is also revert-warring at List of states with limited recognition against the consensus of at least four editors.—Emil J. 19:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not commenting replying earlier, I was sort of caught up in real life. When I asked Phil a question, Nableezy's response did little to mollify my concerns, and actually exacerbated the concerns. This specific AE enforcement is questionable from its genesis. There is no good reasons (and plenty of bad reasons) to have personal AE enforcers doing the bidding for personal requests. We have the noticeboard for a reason.

Then, when a clearly questionable enforcement is "explained" by the editor seeking the enforcement instead of the admin doing the enforcement, the appearance of a team-like editing makes things worse. Thirdly, one would expect that personal AE enforcements would not be undertaken when the request originates from an editor who has been blocked multiple times and topic banned even more times.

Finally, suspicions are further aroused when this comes off the heels of an AE thread in which PhilKnight refused any sort of sanction against Nbaleezy because a week has passed since Nableezy called another editor "stupid." See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69. Everyone knows that the AE board is concerned with both long term and short term behavior.

What I am getting at, is that one sees how this type of enforcement outside of the AE noticeboard can effect the assumption of good faith editors are required to have of the process here Wikipedia. So the question to PhilKnight, at this time, whether this type of enforcement at personal request is something that you plan on doing on a regular basis or was this just a unique case for some reason. If it's the former, I think a RFC is in order because I would be most curious how the community at large thinks of this type of authority.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Brew, you might have a point if you could provide a single diff in which I requested that Phil take any action against anybody. I asked Phil what I should be doing instead of edit-warring, and your insinuations that he is acting as my agent is both odious and without merit. If you wish to have a block overturned you know what the process is. Here you are just seeking to impugn the name of an admin without any basis and, more importantly, without any evidence. Such behavior should result in sanctions.  nableezy  - 05:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, threatening a user with sanctions at administrator's talk page is not the right thing to do IMO. Brew stated his opinion, and he's done absolutely nothing wrong. Oh, yes, to respond your next question, no I do not wikihound you. I have this talk page at my watch list. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer, if there were more admins involved with this area, then we could have a situation where an admin explained relevant policy and guidelines on the talk page, a different admin protected the version prior to the recent edit war, and yet another admin imposed sanctions. I agree with you insofar that would have been preferable. Otherwise, my observation is that we have a situation where editors can seek enforcement on WP:AE, but there isn't a central forum where advice can be obtained, or admins can co-ordinate enforcement. Perhaps WP:IPCOLL or WP:WPAE could be helpful in this regard. PhilKnight (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with an editor coming to you for advice and there certainly is nothing wrong if you provide the relevant advice or guideline. The problem is when AE enforcement is undertaken (i.e. block, topic ban, etc.) outside of the normal process for which enforcement was set up -- that is the AE Noticeboard. Requests for enforcement typically are responded to at the noticeboard, and with the obvious exception here and there, I cant say they are usually unfair.


 * All the more so, in this case, due the circumstances outlined above, it made the most sense not to undertake enforcement until it goes through the regular AE process. That was the one advice that you perhaps overlooked. Best, -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy Congress
Hello. It appears you deleted an image, File:FantasyCongress Screenshot.PNG, because it had no fair-use rationale. It appears notice was put on the article page for Fantasy Congress and the image was deleted all within the past 24 hours, despite the wording of the substitute image caption template. If more time had been given, I might have been able to come up with a fair use rationale. Now that the website it originated from is defunct, it will not be possible to replicate, unfortunately. I would ask that more time be given after notice is posted on an article page or talk page before an image is deleted. Thank you. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Pesco, I've restored the image, and reset the timer. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PhilKnight. I appreciate it.  ~  Pesco  So say•we all 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning
I was just wondering whether there was a reason you only warned me? -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This question takes on greater meaning now that User:Off2riorob has reverted a sourced claim for a fourth time on spurious BLP grounds. He can't rely on the BLP exception when the item is sourced. -Rrius (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Rrius, I don't want to protect the article, because the situation is continuing to change. In this context, if the edit war continues, then it could be necessary to block someone. I strongly suggest you find consensus on the talk page, open RfC, or pursue another form of dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually answer my question. I never even got to three reversions, and you warned me. My first edit restored content and added a source], my second edit restored the categories based on the same source, my third edit restored my first after Rob reverted the sourced content. I am therefore unclear on why I was warned, but an editor singlehandedly waging war against sourced content (not a single other editor has joined him since the source–now sources–was provided). Since then, he has actually violated 3RR (he may have beforehand, actually), and been warned by another editor that it would be reported if it happened again. I don't like the idea of coming to your talkpage to complain about a warning, and I generally delete warnings I find unjust with nothing more than a snarky edit summary, but in this case I am genuinely flummoxed not just by the fact that only one editor got one, but that an editor who had only one true revert was warned, but an editor who had reached, and eventually passed, three was not. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rrius, I wrote the above comment before I read your edit summary in which you said you weren't going to continue. Anyway, I agree I should have given the same warning to Off2riorob. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why you thought I warranted a warning. My first edit restored content that had been removed but added sources, which is clearly not a revert. My second edit restored categories based on the same sources. Only my third was a revert to a "preferred version". That means that I received a warning after exactly one revert, but no one else on either side was warned. I fail to see how I was the great villain here singled out for attention. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

MedCom
Thanks so much for the MedCom nomination support, I look forward to helping out the committee and working with you. --WGFinley (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your prompt action
at Mexican–American War. Life is good, Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Reinaldo Zavarce
The unsourced mess that was sent to AFD as this is already far better NOW. Sources were readily available and was hoping from assistance from Wikipedians fluent in Spanish and Portugese. Tht didn't happen... so I am translating myself and adding more even as I drop you this note. Might you reconsider your opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Etisalat
Greetings, PhilKnight: i been trying to edit the contents of Etisalat from wikipedia and you have un-do the edit's , i was trying to update all the data from the annual report of Etisalat

AND NO there is no promotional material there, please review it again ...

the current data is soooooo old an now considered completely wrong and misguiding ... can u revert this back please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinghunt (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland Mediation
Hello Phil, I am looking to see whether you are ready to give a possible update, or a reason why you would prefer to not make such a statement on the mediation talk page. I have been checking for quite awhile, so I thought some direct communication would remind you of the discussion there. I was hoping all those that did some mediating might say something. Regards, Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. If you want a summary, then why don't you write it yourself? PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he wants a third party opinion. Cheers! Ronk01   talk  19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Block
It appears IP address 128.122.88.9 has returned to his vandalizing ways. Another block? This time longer so the message gets across. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 09:10 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rusted AutoParts, I've blocked the IP for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully he learns his lesson. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 09:41 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Daniel murphy high school hidalgo.jpg
Hi Phil. The replacement explanation: "Picture of the school as it appeared prior to closure and sale. The new owner Yeshiva Aharon Yaakov-Ohr Eliyahu has remodelled, repainted and installed signage which makes a picture of the building now unrecognizable as the former Daniel Murphy HS." What do you think? Lionel (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Lionel, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Lionel (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Quivvy Church
Greetings - I'm leaving a note regarding your deletion of an article about Quivvy Church in Northern Ireland in 2008. Your chief complaint is that its only claim to fame is that it was used by the band Dead Can Dance as a recording studio. I feel that it is important as an historical building; the grounds of the church have also suffered from riots during the skirmishes between Northern Ireland and the Republic or Ireland. Its location directly on the border of the two areas has also given it highly symbolic value. The church now houses one of the best collections of percussion in the country. I think this and other reasons make good arguments for reconstructing the page. Didier Olmstead (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Didier Olmstead, I suggest you create the article in your userspace, for example at User:Didier Olmstead/Quivvy Church, and include sufficient references to overcome the objections mentioned in the Articles for deletion/Quivvy Church discussion. After you've done that, the article could be moved into the mainspace. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Another request
Hi. I see you just blocked the account "Quackdeeep". Please, check the other recent editors also and the request for page protection. Thank you.” TeLe Ş ( PT @ L C G ) 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks again.” TeLe Ş ( PT @ L C G ) 02:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

IP: 173.226.173.71
Wow you work fast. I could swear that it only took, what, five and a half seconds after I posted this guy on ARV for you to block him. I still think a month or two will be more effective, but you're the admin, it is your call. Kudos on the speed. Sven Manguard Talk  17:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Section Sign and drug abuse by offending members
Sorry, mate. I apologize for offending you. Just wanted to draw your attention that, no matter how you slice it, "Also simalr charecter to simolian" is an insane sentence and it hurts to hear or read and it made me feel awful. Please consider not reverting the edit I'll do in a couple of seconds, because I promise I won't add any profanity and insults to it. It's not the best of subjects -- after all, the section sign's relation to The Sims and the simoleon might not be worthy, but I'll do my best to make it good. How's that? Much appreciated, 200.206.252.148 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you were faster than me. You are the best man I ever liked!200.206.252.148 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In need of an uninvolved admin
Hi. :) I'm in need of an uninvolved admin, and I don't want to request one at ANI because the potential for drama is too high. Some of the participants have been on ANI several times recently (one is there now on an uninvolved matter). The core question: when an AfD is active, should a separate merge discussion be launched, or should the AfD be permitted to run its course? The conversation is at Articles for deletion/Catholic views on Mary, and your assistance could be useful. If you agree that the merge discussion is appropriate, it can be left alone; if you do not, it should probably be closed until the AfD is complete. (By the way, if this isn't your neighborhood and you don't want it to be, just let me know. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you much. I appreciate your time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please
reexamine your block of. Maybe it is me just waking up, but I think he was removing vandalism. Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Materialscientist, looking again at his edits, there's only a single possible vandalism edit, and the rest is actually removing vandalism. Anyway, thanks for letting me know, and I've unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)