User talk:PhilKnight/Archive96

FTC Presents
Hi Phil - I'm with the Fairfield Theatre Company. We were in the process of creating our wikipedia page and you deleted page Fairfield theatre company due to 'nonnotable local theatre.' We are a notable theatre. You can view more information at www.fairfieldtheatre.org. Please restore our account. Thanks

FTCPresents (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon
Good Afternoon Phil, thank you for your time and attention. I have a few questions since I am not familiar with the use of Wikipedia, and would like to find out where can we find help to write a document or a proper post that follows all the guidelines. I would like to include this kind of information ….. For years, we have witnessed the aliveness, vitality, and courage of hundreds of people participating in their own transformation, and this phenomenon we call the Transformational Training is still awe-inspiring. In fact, extensive scientific studies have verified that the Training produces truly extraordinary results in people's lives. The technology we use has been scientifically validated beyond anyone's expectations by some of the most far reaching and best credentialed scientific studies in the field. Viewed from the many perspectives of history, personal experience, anecdote, and science. New Opportunity is seen to produce incredibly positive and long lasting results that ripple out into family life, the community, and society. Organizationally, we are starting, we have a vision, a mission and people that trust me. I have always stood so as to support our guiding intention of making transformation available to all people.

Last, my page was recently deleted, when my account was blocked, can it be restore? - and how do I change my last name to the capital W. thank you, have a bless rest of the day

Evelyn wajner (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:DocumentError
See User talk:DocumentError. The block I imposed would have expired a couple of days ago. DocumentError now wants the block lifted. I have no objections, but as you imposed it I think it better if you remove it. The other party to the dispute has not edited since the 8 March, so I do not see that there will be any immediate problems with the lifting of the block. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll unblock the account. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

request
As an alternative to re-blocking me, would you kindly consider posting a note of substantive effect to the following on my Talk page?


 * DocumentError was unblocked on 16JUN2015. There were no conditions attached to this unblock. As of 16JUN2015 is not subject to any TBANS or IBANS, voluntary or otherwise. As of 16JUN2015, DocumentError is not not under any special restriction from referencing this edit [] in any discussion in which reference to it is otherwise topical and appropriate. As of 16JUN2015, DocumentError is not specifically prohibited from making an ANI filing against any other editor, except insofar as the general standards of WP:CIVIL, WP:DRAMA and WP:COMMONSENSE apply to all. DocumentError is in possession of the full rights, privileges, and responsibilities of any WP editor and is under no special, secret, or unique prohibition or probations of any kind.

If PBS doesn't want to pursue the double-secret probation option he/she had previously attached as a condition of my unblocking I'm fine with that. However, I'm concerned this will get dragged up again if PBS' friend decides to become active again in a few weeks and starts block-shopping me again; I would like to have an unambiguous statement I can reference that there were no special attachments applied to my unblocking so the presumption of such attachments can't be used in the inevitable cascade of ANIs he'll file against me on the moment of his return. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - is DocumentError subject to any topic or interaction bans? PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * DocumentError is subject to no topic or interaction ban. The voluntary topic an interaction bans for which DocumentError refused to state whether (s)he would follow, lapsed six months after the closure of the Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868 section. DocumentError and user:Legacypac are sill bound by my statement from the closure of section: "If either of you bring an ANI against the other in future neither of you are to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of this ANI. If you do then expect administrative action."
 * This was imposed because both of them would not drop perceived slights made by the other against themselves. This made dispute resolution difficult because when a new ANI was started, the dragging in of past disputes cased obfuscation and made it difficult for third parties to follow and focus on the most recent dispute. For an example of what I mean just read Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868.
 * In addition look at the bock log, and then look at this statement "After having a flawless disciplinary record and being an active Wikipedian I suddenly found my entire WP career wrecked with the Scarlet Letter of a block and had myself sidelined for the better part of a year". It is not an accurate reflection of what happened. On 8 January 2015 user:Bishonen imposed the first block on the account for 36 hours and my follow up block was of limited duration "Until DocumentError agrees to answer a question put to her/him at the close of an ANI". When it became obvious DocumentError had not intention of answering I simply change the block to one that expired when the voluntary sanctions would have ended. It was DocumentError, who like now, requested that the block was reimposed which is something with which you obliged! I am sorry that you have had to spend time in this morass. -- PBS (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unblock on UTRS from User:Eng.M.Bandara
Hi Phil, Eng.M.Bandara has appealed his block on UTRS per the standard offer. I'm inclined to (re)allow talk page access so that they can appeal onwiki. Whether the unblock is granted or not (and it's probably going to need to go to AN). Have you got any issues with me modifying your block to allow talk page access? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RishabhCine is back
Hi. User RishabhCine, who was blocked is now socking. Just thought you would be interested in the case. Cheers! -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 17:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in this discussion. -- Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Indef block of Neilmacleod
Have you reviewed the unblock request of user Neilmacleod? I don't understand why he was blocked in the first place, let alone why he is still blocked. --Lambiam 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to say thank you very much for accepting my request I know your job involves very hard work but I would like you to take the time to read this little message. Thanks for giving me a second chance and I wish you the best in future. Have a great week. And once again thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwemeowmeow (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 Aurora Shooting
Hello sir. I believe I have reached a conesensus with a potential addition to the conspiracy theories section of the article, but I am requesting you to review Talk:2012_Aurora_shooting to ensure that when additions are made to this section that the changes made will be final. Thanks Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you've achieved consensus just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

AWGTHTGTTA listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AWGTHTGTTA. Since you had some involvement with the AWGTHTGTTA redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Akshardham Delhi Environmental Violations
Hello,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: and this discussion  and provide your input. I feel fresh eyes and admin will bring proper clarity for this topic.

Thank you

Swamiblue (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking of BelénESCPlus
Hi Phil. I noticed that you recently unblocked, upon a request submitted by on the blocked talk page. Belén's account was blocked due to WP:CORPNAME, because the name clearly proven she is the owner of her own website as seen here. There was also a SPI check done, as BelénESCPlus was found to be the puppet-master of. I appreciate that the user has now realised the errors, and that she should not be claiming ownership of any articles on Wikipedia. But it does disturb me that first her main account is blocked due to inappropriate username creation. Then she socks a new account in order to send me a nastyily worded email via my user account. And now it is evident that she has socked again by the creation of. To have violated sockpupperty not once, but twice, is surely alarming and should throw extreme caution into unblocking an account for which they alone only requested to be done by operative means of creating a new sock account?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  11:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Wesley Mouse, 0Celticfairy0 isn't a sock account, but the name BelénESCPlus has chosen to edit under from now on. Otherwise, I see that you're correct in your assessment. Thanks for letting me know. If you want to block the account, then go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Phil, I cannot reblock as I am not an admin. Otherwise I would have done. Celticfairy is clearly OK as it is now an acceptable username. But Having BelénESCPlus unblocked due to the fact she was blocked because of WP:IU would surely be up to the admin to rectify the issue?  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  00:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

TPO vio
Please do not violate TPO as you did on User_talk:2601:246:4300:5770:8E89:A5FF:FEDC:1F8. Continued violations will result in your account being BLOCKED. 2601:246:4300:5770:611B:2AC4:C093:64D2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4300:5770:611B:2AC4:C093:64D2 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Signature
I have made your own colorful signature.

Phil Knight  ([[talk) ]] 18:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

--182.189.105.172 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You were pinged
Why didn't you respond to my ping? -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to look at this immediately emerging situation
Issue: User completely reverting Talk comments of one User: A User with whom you interacted recently, in an edit war/block situation, has taken it upon himself to completely blank out the Talk comments of this editor, see last two Talk entries here Talk as it should be versus The world according to… DePiep. See also here the edit history, where you see I had to experiment with his reversion, to believe my eyes, that he had actually reverted my entries. (Note, I do not know technically what he did, as the first violating edit of his, at 22:45, 18 August 2015‎ (DePiep, +4,687)‎, appears to be an addition. I simply know the result was to delete all my Talk entries of today.]

Please have a look, and restore the Talk to where it was before this problem editor did his erasure? It is urgent because others have been pinged to reply to the latest discussion (i.e., he needs to be reverted, and stopped from re-deleting Talk, before others begin to edit the wrong page.) Thank you for your attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Initial matter settled—Talk page restored—but not before the fellow let Doc and I have it, mdr. See closing Talk section here,  (and search your name to see previous encounter). Perhaps look in here  to make sure Bagumba's reversion stands, if your time permits. Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OmgWeegeetime
I think you meant "" on that block decline. Ogress smash! 21:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ogress, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , formerly, prolly needs to be added to the main user since you noted they are confirmed puppet. Ogress smash! 21:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When you did your checkuser, Phil, did you turn up any other accounts besides those three? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, just these two. PhilKnight (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Review an unblock
Phil,

You unblocked, who had been blocked because his username violated Wikipedia policy (too long) based on the user's unblock request in which they indicated they wished to change user names. The user has not actually done anything to request a username change. As the unblocking admin, I thought I'd bring this to your attention. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

comment
Sockmaster is spamming unblock requests (I mean literally spamming, like 7 of them in a row). Is this a case where we'd lock a page? Ogress 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Happy days. I have been unblocked.
It seems there are people within Wikipedia who have the wisdom to judge others, including their sincere appeals to be unblocked, in a fair and reasonable manner. With this in mind, I would like to inform you that I have been unblocked and look forward to making many useful and positive contributions in the future. My aim is to become a top level administrator so I can treat other contributors with decency and integrity and, hopefully, not allow any personal bias, petty-mindedness or delusional sense of power to cloud my judgement. As I believe you were the person who 'permanently' blocked me (despite my contrite, heartfelt and cogently argued appeal not to do so) I thought you might be interested to hear of my aspirations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodseats44 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

For info. User talk:Woodseats44's recent "aspirations" have amply demonstrated the wisdom of your permanent block. A great pity that it was overturned. KJP1
 * And has now been blocked again. Let's hope no one is so unwise as to unblock a second time.  KJP1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

IPBE
Is a paid VPN an "open or anonymising proxy?"—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A VPN is, in effect, an anonymising proxy. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meaning I can't edit from VPNs?—Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, ignore that. You can use IPBE to edit from a VPN. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Babyface lovers.jpg
It was used in Lovers (Babyface album). You deleted the image per FFD, but there wasn't one vote. It's just a nominator's rationale. Was deleting the image a mistake? --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The normal procedure is to delete at FFD if there's just the nominator's rationale, so it wasn't a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I had the deletion under review in DRV. You can comment there. --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you have dealt with ERIDU-DREAMING's behaviour earlier. Currently regarding the TV show London Spy he seem to be violating norms of behaviour. On his talk page he calls people "twats". In his edits he makes abusive remarks "You have mental problems mate.". The dispute is about episode titles which he repeatedly asserts are correct, but has failed to provide any WP:RS, just keeps reverting the article to his text. 202.81.248.11 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Offensive user name
Hello, PhilKnight. I see that you unblocked User:Freshcrap so that he/she could request a change of username. However, the user has blanked the user warnings and is continuing to edit under the offensive name. Do you agree that it's appropriate to re-block this account? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Anne, I've reblocked the account. PhilKnight (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Infogrid Pacific (logo).png
 Thanks for uploading File:Infogrid Pacific (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ombudsman Request Re: Possible Administrator's abuse of Checkuser
Hello, I am contacting you in your capacity as Wikipedia Ombudsman. Please have a look at this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=696259546&oldid=696255939 particular usage]. I believe this usage breaks the spirit and letter of this Wikipedia policy, i.e."checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing." Please respond on my Wikipedia talk page/ Thank you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)