User talk:PhilKnight/Archive95

Further information required
Hi Phil

'Thanks' for your post to my wall. Maybe you could supply the full answer to the question and statement there. Just parroting a 'computer says no' style statement is completely unhelpful. If autoblock is working as intended, it is not working correct to the true intention of it. AlexF has blocked the entire IP for the organisation, based presumably on the username and assumptions about its purpose, without bothering to examine the actual behaviour of the account blocked. Behaviour that has transgressed no rule or guideline, and has simply served to correct erroneous information about the work of the charity. As a result this perpetuated the placement of defamatory comments on the page for the charity. Is that the intended effect of autoblock? That we couldn't even remove the defamatory comment because you blocked the entire IP, without particularly strong justification? Without telling the account that they needed to change their name first (assuming that is the problem)?Guy.shrimpton (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451's unblock request (again)
Hi. What is your current feeling regarding 's indefinite block? After you declined to unblock her on March 10, she replied saying that she had indeed used information from WHOIS. No one has touched her unblock request since that time. Also, the SPI case was closed several days ago, with three socks indeffed. I'm currently leaning toward unblocking Kristina451 at this time, but I wanted to check with you first to see what you think now. FWIW, I've also asked the original blocking admin for his thoughts. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't unblock, as I'm skeptical of her assertion that she gained all of the information from WHOIS. PhilKnight (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Upon further checking, I too am not convinced she could have found everything in question from WHOIS.  I've posted a request for clarification on her talk page.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on Kristina451's further comments, I'm going to go ahead and unblock her. See her talk page for more details.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, and . I really feel unjustly treated here. The socks indeffed have nothing to do with me as the CheckUser had concluded. It was filed in bad faith and unfair to me that he (Kristina451) accused me of dishonesty without waiting for the CU's verdict.


 * Kristina451's claim that he stumbled upon my identity purely from WHOIS information is at best partially truthful as you have discovered from trying to replicate his IP search. It seems he just used the city/state to guess my employer's name and then created his account name to resemble my boss's name to check his guess. He provoked me into asking him to stop harassing my employer, which was the only reason he knew for sure. That offending account name is still signed on his talk page and was the reason why  blocked him and required a name change.


 * Aside from WHOIS information, he somehow uncovered the names of two universities where I studied at and publicized them in the SPI. He also purports to have a video which shows my identity and wanted to share it.  Those are clearly not available from a WHOIS. It's honestly creepy that he has stalked me to this extent and I actually fear for my safety.


 * I think creating an account name solely to provoke me, the 3rd repeat outing incident in the span of 10 months, the bad faith SPI and disruptive editing patterns (excessive article undos) are overwhelming signs of WP:NOTHERE, which seems to have accurately assessed at first.


 * I'm sorry to have to trouble you all to take a closer look at this but I'm really fearful of his predatory behavior and haven't been able to sleep last night because of his unblock. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at it, despite what could be considered some minor COI by Sophie.grothendieck (maybe, I haven't looked that thoroughly) the assertions by Kristina are troubling. Although it is possible one would find out one or more of these things through WHOIS or other means, given the whole picture the comments may be intended to have a chilling effect, and may also border on harassment. That being said, has Kristina stayed clear of HFT articles? (That was a condition of unblock). I think an unblock isn't unreasonable, but Kristina's conduct has been thoroughly problematic, and I could see how under some possible circumstances it could be deeply troubling to Sophie. NativeForeigner Talk 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * has made 11 edits so far since I unblocked her on March 26. Most of these have been reverts of edits made by  before this latter account was indeffed as a sock.  Just for the record, NF, can you cite exactly where Kristina451 was instructed to "stay clear" of HFT articles as a condition for being unblocked?  When I unblocked her, I strongly cautioned her to drop her efforts to expose what she believed was evidence of COI, but I didn't intend to topic-ban her entirely from the HFT subject area.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your quick attention. About COI allegations against me, the only HFT-related article I've edited is IEX, where I had been cooperating with other editors on the article talk page to maintain a neutral POV and did my part to protect the page against vandals who were criticizing IEX.  I stepped away from this article 6 months ago because the article had become mostly balanced and stable with my contributions and didn't need me any more.


 * Kristina451 has not stayed clear of HFT articles . In fact he just spends all of his time digging up (alleged) dirt about HFT         and filtering out and undoing all the incoming edits that highlight positive aspects of HFT..




 * Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You created most of these issues with your disruptive sockpuppets, more than 30 including IPs. Kristina451 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NativeForeigner asked me on my talk page to "stay clear of the IEX article" (direct quote) and linked to the IEX article in my block log. I did observe this, though I think it serves no useful purpose and is only preventing me from addressing sockpuppet abuse and improving the article. The self-portrayal of 'Sophie.grothendieck' is untrue and evidence can be provided off-wiki, if desired. I agreed not to pursue the COI issue on-wiki.
 * "The socks indeffed have nothing to do with me as the CheckUser had concluded." The CheckUser actually said "All but 4 accounts other than that are stale, and they are editing within the relative confines of the sockpuppetry policy." The only thing in the sockpuppetry policy that arguably permits some of the socking would be Legitimate uses => Privacy, and this can only apply to 'Sophie.grothendieck' as the sockmaster. Kristina451 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and, Kristina451 filed this bad faith SPI against me where you concluded that I wasn't involved in sockpuppeting, but he is not letting this rest and is now parsing your words. Could you please clarify what you had meant? Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can some experienced admins, with experience in the "high-frequency trading" topic area, please take a look at the recent (31 March 2015) editing history by IP's at Quote stuffing and try to figure out if anything needs to be done? Kristina451 [ pointed this out to me] on her talk page, and it seems to me that something suspicious might be going on, but I do not have the necessary background in this topic area to be able to tell reliably whether these IP edits are constructive or not. I was considering going straight to WP:AN/I with this, but I'm asking here first just in case I can get someone involved who knows the subject. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rich wales, please don't let him derail this conversation. I think that his harassment, naming where I went to school and trying to share a video with my identity  already proves beyond reasonable doubt that his outing source goes beyond a WHOIS. You also seem disturbed by his behavior.  I admire that you're doing your job well and in your shoes, I'd have given him the benefit of the doubt as well but honestly he's just exploiting your kindness. If you're not going to address my concerns please let me know ASAP because I'm worried for my safety. Thanks. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked Message
Strangely it has gone as quick as it arrived on my account. It had arrived on the upload page of commons from an administrator of the German Wikipedia. I am mystified by it! Thanks for your response though! Kolforn  ♣  08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in: If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
 * Leeds on 12th April 2015
 * Manchester on 26th April 2015
 * Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Klbogart55
Hello. He's now using Klbogart13.  Corky  |  Chat?  20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Corky. PhilKnight (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Is this ever going to end? Klbogart1009 is now going.  Corky  |  Chat?  21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MarkB1975
Hi Phil, thank you for helping me sort out the username issue I had yesterday. Can I ask some advice regarding image posting? I've been asked to put an image on Fuzz_Townshend as his wiki page is plain at the moment. The first image is Fuzz handing over a sign to a garage that has joined a Classic Friendly scheme. I've uploaded the image but it seems that after a few days the image is deleted. If you look through his page you'll see quite a few images have been deleted (those ones were uploaded by his PR Agent at his request). The image I am looking at using is one that I took myself (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FuzzSignHandoverCF.jpg) - do I need to put a copyright tag with the image? Thanks for you help.MarkB1975 (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi MarkB1975, from what I can tell, you've added the appropriate image tag to the file page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Medcom email
Phil, you've got urgent Medcom email. You're the first admin I can find who's currently online. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries mate.
I saw your error when you tried to leave me a message on my talk page. Don't worry. I'm not vandalizing, nor adding unsourced materials. Keep up the good work and happy contributing. JetsAndYankees4Life (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

username change
Hi PhilKnight, thank you for accepting the username change. I have asked for the request from the link you gave me and now just waiting for it to be processed. I'm looking forward to being able to contribution to Wikipedia in a positive way.

Regards ElissaK — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendaryProductions (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Food and Environment Research Agency (logo).png
You just deleted this per WP:CSD. Did you notice that the file is in use in Fera Science? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Stefan2, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight
Hi dude. I know you deleted the Deadpool picture on my user page. Thanks for letting me know I can't use that one. Can I use the one I put up there now? If not, you can get rid of it and reply back here to tell me what pictures I can use to put on my user page. Thanks, Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that it isn't, because the current fair use tag specifies that it's being used "to illustrate the subject in question", which it isn't on your user page--sorry. Unfortunately, most Deadpool pictures can't be used, because they're copyright of the studio. Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nooo! Oh well. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got a mail
 Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully I am wrong...
... but while reading User talk:Dstoli1770 I get the Idea that you unblocked him at 20 January 2015 on the condition that he would not edit the article Alexis Railsback. In that case, the list of his edits is rather remarkable and in fact an unpolite hand gesture. The Banner talk 20:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The January unblock conditions can be seen at User talk:Dstoli1770. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've blocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Those pageants are a real nightmare with genuine editors, different importance in different countries and, as far as I know, several sock/meatfarms. The Banner talk 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested enough to look deeply into it...
...but User:Urbantown looks like a sock of User:Sanjoy64. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick
Hi. Thanks for reviewing TheGracefulSlick's unblock request so quickly. However, as I respectfully disagree with your decline, I've posted to ANI here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Cristina Molina
Can this be reverted as an abuse of talk page privileges? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm not going to revert her, but will understand if someone else does. PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Door's ghost
This worries me, seeing that Door is currently blocked. I don't think he knows but you should give a heads up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, turned out to be a sock account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC
Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Phil, thank you for unblocking my account, lesson learned and I appreciate your speedy help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah Quarantine (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision block/decline.
TPO is not the supporting reversion in that case. The supporting policy would be 3RR exemptions under vandalism - suppoerted by the WP:vandalism policy which states under 'talk page vandalism' 'Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. I would request you revisit the IP's block appeal Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't consider the changes to be vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the vandalism policy explicitly states that it is, are you disagreeing with the policy itself, or are you saying that that altering someone elses comments in that manner was legitimate? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that common sense applies. Changing the comments wasn't legitimate, but still falls short of vandalism.PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense is not a rationale for declining an unblock request. Sorry, you cant say you agree the changes were not legitimate and then say you disagree with them being vandalism when the vandalism policy explicitly says illegitimate changes are vandalism. You are disagreeing with the way the policy is worded and as such should not have even accepted/declined the unblock request if you dont agree with the policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Should I delete your response?
Hi PhilKnight,

You might not remember, but a few months ago you looked into an IP Range Block that appeared to be affecting my account. I submitted an Unblock Request via my Talk Page to which you denied and responded that I should have been able to break through that block whilst logged in. I haven't tried editing from my phone for a while now, but I'll probably try again sometime.

Anyway, what are the rules on deleting old requests (whether approved or denied) from Talk Pages? While I could just delete it since the block wasn't directly aimed at me, I'd rather not throw myself into the frying pan by doing it without permission.

Basically: is it safe for me to erase the request from my Talk Page, given that it could probably still be viewed in historical data if anyone really wanted to review it (not that such an aspect would bother me), or is it better to just leave it alone? I don't mind whether any reply is on my page or yours, so feel free to reply whichever way works for you.

Thanks.

Usual people in life (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can remove the request from your talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

[[File:Tombras-logo.png]]
You are the deleting administrator of record for. If a new low-resolution vector image were substituted, similar to the images for Pepsico or NBA and listed as non-free and copyright with appropriate tags, and with inclusion of the fair use rationale "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Tombras Group, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey," would that suffice to have the namespace re-opened for the new image? Jpbrenna (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper means of "dispute" resolution
Please take a look at the edits I effected to the Intelligence quotient page. I added a crisp notation near the questioned text&#151;something along the lines of {disputed; see Talk page}&#151;and provided a detailed rationale, including references, on the corresponding Talk page. Was this correct? I am certain I used the Talk page properly, but I am not certain what protocol is employed on the canonical page, i.e., whether {dispute; ...} is appropriate or whether there's a specific macro or – -artifact or what-have-you that I should have employed. Thank you for your input. 73.49.1.133 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you should have used Disputed-inline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits removed from Nova Albion and Francis Drake pages
I've tried to have my edits placed back on the Nova Albion and Francis Drake pages after discovering about 4 weeks ago that my limited edits were removed and placed on a "Fringe Theories" page. I have had numerous historians and professionals endorse my work that Francis Drake landed in Nehalem Bay in 1579 which he called Nova Albion. I had an article published in "Terrae Incognitae" the blind peer review journal of the Society for the History of Discoveries in April 2014. I'm sure you can find my comments with the Wiki Admin Horst59 along with his original discussions with the Drake Navigators Guild President Mike Von der Porten, who dominates those pages, to have me removed. I've been singled out because I'm self published and have a web site. All of the Drake Navigators Guild publications have been self published. I forwarded the Wiki page talk comments about my being removed during the late 2012 and early 2013 to C. Melvin Aikens, Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus, Univ. of Oregon and former director of UO Museum of Natural and Cultural History and this is what he had to say and asked I place them on Wikipedia: "Garry-

I’m appalled by the venom exhibited by some parties to the Francis Drake discussion. I was quite taken by the possibilities that emerged for me from reading both Gitzen's and Bawlf’s books, and by the local archaeological survey data Gitzen brought to bear on his hypothesis of Drake’s seeking to plot Nehalem’s global position from astronomical observations. I don’t know enough about either the facts on the ground or matters of celestial navigation to be confident about the strength of his case, but it seemed to me that he brought concrete local field data to bear on a reasonable hypothesis, and I’m puzzled by the Wikipedia decision to suppress the proposed ideas rather than keeping them out there as fodder for further research and consideration."

I requested to Horst59 to have have my edits reinstated which he responded in the negative. Can you help me in this process. Thank you.Ggitzen (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please full-protect Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)
It is an edit war between multiple editors. 213.229.101.59 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)