User talk:PhilKnight/Archive84

Mail

 * Thanks. I can confirm we've received your email. PhilKnight (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

BRAHMA KUMARIS WORLD SPIRITUAL UNIVERSITY
January the 18th, appears to be an anti-BK contributor. has hijacked and given a false picture of the BK by inserting anti-bk comments throughout. Deletes pro-Bk data on regular basis. Please freeze website to previous version

Dear Phil Again, January the 18th is systematically deleting my [|contributions]. Contributor J18 seems to be very anti-BK and is filtering only anti-BK data in the page. Request for vetting of above and possible semi-protection status for a temporary period. Thks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish75 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear PhilKnight,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute
As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're updating the vote count in TG case
You should probably update the banning votes too. It looks like there has been quite a change there as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording of your motion
I appreciate that a motion has finally been proposed about the conflict between myself and Mathsci. I think this will go a long way towards ending this conflict. However, in the interest of making sure this really is going to be resolved now, I do have a few questions about it:

1: The wording of your proposed sanction prohibits myself and Mathsci from interacting with one another except for administrative threads and RFCs "where either or both are a party". This sounds like it's saying that if either Mathsci or I is an involved party in a thread, either of us would still be permitted to comment about the other there. Was that the intention? If not, this wording seems to be creating a loophole that I'm not sure should exist.

2: Does this interaction ban cover Captain Occam as well as myself, or just me? As I said in my initial statement in the amendment request (and Captain Occam mentioned in his request in September), this two-year conflict with Mathsci has always involved both me and Occam, and I'd rather not leave room for coded references to me such as talking about "Captain Occam and his cohorts". Having the sanction cover only me also makes this conflict more likely to resurface after Captain Occam's block expires.

3: One other important issue which isn't addressed by this motion is other editors' continuing to publicly repeat the off-wiki information that Mathsci has posted about me. This is something else that's been going on for almost two years (I mentioned it in my evidence in the original R&I case in June 2010), and there are some examples of it in the amendment thread itself. Even though the interaction ban will be beneficial, I don't want this to mean other editors are just going to pick up where he left off. I'm especially concerned about this because in this discussion, Edjohnston was not convinced that editors bringing up off-wiki information about me in public is a problem. Edjohnston is the admin who tends to handle AE requests in the R&I topic area, so this is a really clear advance warning that AE likely won't be able to resolve any further issues with this, if it continues.

I don't mean to seem ungrateful - I'm actually quite relieved that something is finally being done about this situation. But I also know that the goal of arbitration decisions is generally to "break the back" of a dispute. I think it's important for Arbcom to understand there's a risk that this motion alone might only cause it to subside temporarily, and then have to be dealt with by Arbcom again in another few months. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ferahgo. IMO, it's inappropriate to (1) initiate a side-discussion about the motion with arbitrators when you can easily raise the points on the main /Amendment page and (2) use a side-discussion to advocate for Captain Occam.  Roger Davies  talk 20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll drop the issue of whether there's a danger the conflict will resume after Captain Occam's block expires. But I think the more important point is about not leaving room for gaming, in the sense of using references to Occam as a way to bring me up indirectly. I still think that's a reasonable concern, entirely for my own sake.


 * I have not been involved in something like this before, so I was unsure of where a comment like this should be posted. Because of how long the amendment thread is, and how quickly voting can happen, I was concerned if I just added a new section to my statement it might not be noticed before the request is closed. I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. If a clerk would like to move the discussion to a more appropriate place, that's fine. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. The Helpful  Bot  01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hurt and perplexed
I'm perplexed as to why you and the others signed up to the following, and very hurt that you did.


 * 5) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

If you have any examples of where you feel my contributions to discussion did not reflect sufficient receptiveness to compromise and/or too low of a tolerance for the views of other editors, I would very much like to know where, and why you think that.

If you don't know of any such examples, why did you agree to this?

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Russavia, my answers are as follows:
 * 1) no, I didn't discuss whether Fae was being harassed on the ArbCom mailing list,
 * 2) I didn't express a preference either way in regard to the committee reviewing this,
 * 3) there wasn't a vote as far as I'm aware.
 * PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Being ignored by ArbCom?
Mr. PhilKnight, am I being ignored by ArbCom regarding my sister's - User:Flyer22's - case? For the first email I sent you all, I believe it got approved for the list because you sent me a message saying "This is to acknowledge receipt of your email. We hope to get back to you as soon as possible." But I have sent two emails to you all about my sister's case since then, and I've gotten the usual "Your mail to 'ArbCom-l' ... Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval" note, but no followup note letting me know it was or wasn't approved. It says "Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision." If I don't get an email letting me know that receipt of my email has been acknowledged, does that mean it's been posted to the list? And why isn't ArbCom conversing with me? Do they believe I'm being dishonest? I've offered to show proof of my being who I say I am, information (that they may not have) about how I socked and why it was me who made the edits my sister is accused of making, but your committee has been silent. Is this how the committee normally works? Or am I just being ignored? If ignored, why doesn't the committee just let me know that they think my words are bogus? 108.60.145.58 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look to see what happened. PhilKnight (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost question
Hi PhilKnight! I write for the Signpost and I'm working on a series analyzing the work of the Arbitration Committee (a recent story here). Would you be free to answer some questions regarding your work on the Committee, and specifically the ins and outs of the committee mailing list? I see you're a member of the incoming mail team for the committee, and I'm interested in some organizational details. For example:
 * Are PD assignments made on the list
 * How much discussion about a decision, pre-PD draft, is there

If you would be willing, please ping my talk page. I'd be glad to post questions here or via email, whichever you prefer. Best regards! Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lord Roem, yes, I'm certainly willing to answer your questions. Either here, or by email would be fine. Regarding your initial questions, after a case is accepted, arbitrators volunteer to draft the proposed decision, and from there we agree who is going to be lead drafter. Although sometimes there is discussion on the mailing list about a draft, it's mostly other arbitrators asking the lead drafter about progress. Occasionally, there is discussion of evidence, or discussion of possible remedies, however this is relatively rare. PhilKnight (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Signpost questions
1. What are your general feelings about the usage of the mailing list? Is it a useful tool? Is there a transparency problem or things that could be brought on-wiki?


 * I'd prefer if we didn't use a mailing list, and instead using something else. Maybe something like OTRS, or a content management system. ArbCom has a private wiki, however that isn't used that much, beyond storage of templated responses, and tracking ban appeals. I think a large proportion of the mailing list can't be brought on-wiki as discussion concerns emails sent to the committee, which are confidential. I'm personally unenthusiastic about making mailing list discussions publicly available - I think it would be preferable to take a more active role in the workshop pages instead.

2. When you first joined the Committee, what was your biggest shock or insight you gained through participating in cases? What surprised you?


 * The biggest shock to the system was definitely the amount of emails on the mailing list - sometimes over a 100 a day. I started volunteering as part of the Volunteer Response Team answering emails sent to Wikimedia using OTRS, and I was struck with the difference between the mailing list and OTRS. For example, the mailing list server has no search function, and there's no capacity to mark threads as resolved. Overall, I was far more impressed with OTRS than with the mailing list set up.


 * Otherwise, I was surprised the amount of time drafting my first case took. I don't consider drafting the case was any more difficult than handling an arbitration enforcement request or mediation case, however it was considerably more time consuming.

3. AGK and other new arbitrators replied in their recent interviews that conversation is more frank and open on the mailing list. Do you find discussions to be calm? Are there occasional heated arguments?


 * Discussion on the mailing list is certainly more frank and open, however it is generally speaking calm. There have been one or two occasions in the last year when an individual arbitrator has become somewhat frustrated, however that generally isn't a problem.

4. I've heard the amount of mail you get can be crazy, just how so?


 * The evening before the start of the Rodhullandemu desyop discussions, I went to bed around midnight. I got up the next day around 6:30, and there were over 100 new emails. By the time I was halfway through them, I had to got to work. By the time I got home, there were over 200 more new emails.

I appreciate your willingness to help with the story, which is currently slated for May 7th. Best wishes, Lord Roem (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lord Roem, I've answered inline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Flyer22 BASC review
Phil Flyer22's brother has left me a very long note letting me know he still has information he'd like to present more information to BASC. Apparently he'd like you to contact their mother or her doctors so they can tell you that everything he has told you is true. He's also admitted to some more socking as User talk:JacobTrue. He has also been maintaining Flyer22's articles during the block, and I guess since he wants to make things look extra suspicious, he's continued to copy her editing style. I've noticed suspicious edits on List of fictional supercouples and Todd Manning, and I'm sure there are more on the topics she edited in regards to sexuality. I'm passing this on to you and washing my hands of it cause the whole thing just makes me sad. Either someone I've edited with for years has a brother that is a troll that seems determined to ruin her on Wikipedia, or she herself is a troll with a good hand/bad hand account. AniMate 02:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi AniMate, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's more of what I said to Mr. AniMate if you must know. Mr. PhilKnight already knows that I was still editing. So are you looking to get my sister punished even further for my actions? Is that why you say I "copy her editing style"? Besides following her to some articles, show me where I copy my sister's editing style, since she's always freakin' capitalizing and spelling shit out in her edit summaries! There are times I don't even leave an edit summary when I should. Have I restored things to the way my sister had them? Yeppers. But I wouldn't call that copying her editing style. You're either implying that I want my sister to get in bigger trouble than she's already in or that I'm my sister. You're just like some of the committee basically, thinking my sister would do shit like this and not even making an effort to confirm my words that she isn't. You're all blind if you can't see that we're two different people. Mr. User:Herostratus and a few others are really the only ones who can see that? Does my sister go around telling people to suck a dick? No? I do, but I only did that a few times on Wikipedia. I'm not a bad editor. I've been good for most of my editing time here, so I'm not a bad account. Maybe I should stop editing while my sister is blocked, but I asked Mr. Knight what happens after that. If I'm still editing, how is my sister protected from being accused of being a sockpuppet again? Should I never edit here again? These are relevant questions that I would expect answers to. You're saddened, Mr. AniMate? I'm saddened that you could think so little of my sister. I think I'm done trying to clear her name, which is exactly what you wanted. 67.221.255.12 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The current situation is that you're blocked indefinitely, and in this context, I've blocked the IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The best thing that whoever is behind these edits could do is to never edit again anonymously using a proxy server. If all the activity from this anonymous editor has ended before Flyer22's block expires, there is a chance that Flyer22 can be unblocked, and all this will eventually be forgotten.  If this person is still editing in the way that he/she is currently, then the likelihood is that Flyer22 will be blocked permanently. It's as simple as that.  Whoever you are, you need to shut up. Now. If you want to edit Wikipedia, there is a possibility that you could do so if you created your own account, and acknowledged your relationship to Flyer22, but at that point you would be breaking our rules (as has been explained multiple times) if you edited on behalf of Flyer22 or to back Flyer22 up.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Dear PhilKnight,

Thank you for creating the "User talk:Vijayv1987" page. I intend to find my way around being an active part of Wikipedia and will try my best to contribute in the editing process. I assume the links provided with all the directions should point me in the right direction. Also, before getting started, it would be great if you could delete my post in the following 2 pages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ARUNKUMAR_P.R

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SumerianPrince

My corresponding posts were regarding that issue which I had previously mailed you about and if it is okay, I felt it would be more appropriate to take my specific post off as the purpose has been dealt with already. In case it is okay for me to delete it myself please let me know and I shall proceed to do the same.

Thanks and Best Regards, VijayVijayv1987 (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Vijay, I've removed the posts. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:PhilKnight/Archive83
Hi there. Just a small request. Can you change any links that are User:Whenaxis → User talk:Whenaxis on your page so it doesn't appear as a redlink? Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI Noloop
Hi Phil just letting you know in case you didn't see this. I was on the point of blanking and reblocking with Noloop's talk page access revoked but as I comented in NoLoop's spurious RFC on Slrubenstin I feel it better coming from another sysop-- Cailil  talk 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Cailil, thanks for letting me know. I don't object to the emails being published on-wiki, and I think it even helps to some extent, as it shows s/he isn't ready to return to editing just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure - I see what you mean. Just wanted to make sure you knew about it-- Cailil  talk 16:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights
You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonardo
I just returned the story of the Verrocchio Baptism of Christ to the article. In an article on Leonardo's personal life, the fact that he assisted painting a picture is not significant. His master's reaction to the painting is the relational matter that places the account into the article. Moreover, there is an extreme paucity of information about Leonardo's life at that time, and it is one of the few "facts" that we have. Of course, it is possible that Vasari exaggerated, but on the other hand, since Verrocchio was not a prolific painter, it may well be true. The point here is that while the account of Verrocchio's reaction did need referencing, it didn't need removing. Amandajm (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

your opinion please?
You closed Articles for deletion/Mike Cabana. Although I started the Mike Cabana article it seems I didn't weigh in. That is probably because the nominator failed to observe the usual courtesy of leaving a heads-up on the article creator's talk page.

The nomination seems to be asserting that Cabana is just a random, junior official -- a peripheral, insignificant blp1e. In fact he was a rising official, and has been Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP of the RCMP for several years.

It seems to me he wasn't a junior official in 2008. It concerns me when articles on perfectly valid topics are deleted because the nominator doesn't inform those involved so that there is a full discussion of the issues.

This is a selection of the available references. Would you agree that this is sufficient that if you userified it for me I could move it to article space once I have incorporated the additional references. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'd prefer you went through deletion review. For what's it worth, I agree completely with Fram's comment at User talk:Geo Swan. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you please email me the source text of the last version I edited? Geo Swan (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, for the same reasons. PhilKnight (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I started a thread at the village pump #When should administrators decline to email the source text to deleted material?


 * With regard to the article on Mike Cabana, if we were to ignore other contributors' edits which corrected spelling or punctuation errors; added or expanded references; added metadata like defaultsort or categories -- did I remain the sole author of the intellectual content of this article, from when it was started to when it was deleted?


 * I'd appreciate it if you could check the revision history, and confirm or refute this. Thanks.


 * Your interest may be exhausted -- you may have no interest in explaining more fully why you would decline to return my intellectual property so I can consider submitting it elsewhere. But, if you are prepared to explain more fully please consider doing so directly at #When should administrators decline to email the source text to deleted material?


 * Finally, do you know of a reason why I shouldn't offer diffs to our exchange here as an example of an administrator declining to return a copyright holder's good faith contribution of intellectual property based on an interpretation of wikipedia policy?


 * Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've emailed you a copy so you can consider submitting it elsewhere. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your cooperation in this matter. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

REGARDS: List of CBS television affiliates (table)
I am so glad I have admin assistance; I need help immediately. Under my belief, I don't think there is a policy on television affiliate listings. I recently got into issues editing those lists, as I had offered on the three table listings for NBC, CBS and FOX, links to their owned-and-operated station holding company. For example, on List of Fox television affiliates (table), I changed a line to "This list does not include Fox-owned stations affiliated with MyNetworkTV. For such stations, please see the article Fox Television Stations." The second sentence was mine. I had done something similar to List of CBS television affiliates (table) ("This list does not include CBS-owned independent stations, or outlets affiliated with the CW Television Network. For such stations, please see the article CBS Television Stations.", but a user named User:DreamMcQueen is against this. He told me that my edits are "not helpful", but I want people to get an easier way to look at stations stated under "this list does not include" (simply click on a link to the article rather than go search for it). I did this twice but the user kept reverting my edits (see List of CBS television affiliates (table): Revision history). The notes at the NBC table and Fox table have been left untouched. Can you please tell me if there is really a policy, and if there is not, why that user would do such a thing? I noticed he is only targeting the CBS list. Thank you! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you try the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick Browne Article
I was going to create a page for Nick Browne, but wanted to see what page was deleted in 2009. This page would be for the American football kicker that played for Texas Christian University in 2003. According to WP:NCOLLATH, examples of college athletes that are presumed notable would include players who have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards). Template:College Football Awards lists College Football All-America Team as an award and as such it appears Nick Browne to meet the requirements since he was named an All-American in 2003. Further, not only was he an All-American, but was a Consensus All-Americans (see http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/DI/2009/2009Awards.pdf). I didn't know if this was the same Nick Browne that was deleted or if there is information of which I am not aware. Therefore I wanted to check to see the circumstances of the 2009 deletion. RonSigPi (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi RonSigPi, the page I deleted was a vanity page for someone else. PhilKnight (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I understand
The move review process is not policy or supported by any form of community consensus or authority. Given that, surely reviews of administrator actions would need to be closed in accordance with existing Community policy, wouldn't they? That one administrator tried to enforce the criteria of a process (which has no consensus) surely does not mean that the actual discussion endorsed JHunterJ's action, or does it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ncmvocalist, although the move review process is unofficial, it was nonetheless a discussion involving a large number of editors that was open for a week, and was closed by an uninvolved admin. Although it may not be able to completely endorse JHunterJ's action as it's an unofficial process, I think it probably does endorse his action to some extent. PhilKnight (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There was certainly a discussion, but the issue here is that the closing admin admits to placing reliance on the criteria - which, in fact, is not actually approved by the Community. In its current form where it is mechanistically interpreted, the criteria would not be accepted by the Community when all that is needed for endorsement is a mere stated intent of a closer, rather than Community consensus like at other admin noticeboard discussions. If the Community comes to a view that there was something exceptional to depart from the ordinary rules or which indicates the close appeared to be improper (even if it was not intended as such), than like with any other admin action, the Community would not disable itself from reversing it - especially because a single admin is sticking to the letter of an unapproved process instead of policy, or because a few editors (nearly all of whom were involved to begin with) endorse it. Others also participated in this as an usual review which would be assessed according to actually endorsed policy, and this is clear from their comments in the aftermath. In these circumstances, do you think it would be more appropriate to stick to that conclusion as opposed to reviewing the actual input? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While I understand what you're saying, the Arbitration Committee has a clearly defined remit which doesn't include content. I think by favouring one result over another we could, in effect, be straying outside our remit. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Will limit proposals just to admin actions and conduct (which includes manner of responsiveness and receptiveness to feedback). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Game rationale
Template:Game rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Fayenatic London 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

De-protocoled links
I just removed the https: protocol from your links in the Perth discussion, so they'll show up correctly no matter which site you're logged into. Hope that's ok. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Video rationale
Template:Video rationale has been nominated for merging with Template:Non-free use rationale video cover. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. I think this one is less controversial. – Fayenatic L[User talk:Fayenatic london|ondon]] 17:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
' Ankh '. Morpork  22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...
Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff
Here's the diff.

Best,  Roger Davies  talk 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll amend my vote. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)