User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Mrkshahin - "→Ekram Ahmed Lenin: new section" |
|||
Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
== Ekram Ahmed Lenin == |
== Ekram Ahmed Lenin == |
||
⚫ | Why you have deleted this page? Please see the book ( http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6670577-L.jpg ). I am trying to contribute his biography and all books in Wikipedia. Please retrieve this page. What you require just ask me, I should give you all proofs.[[User:Mrkshahin|Mrkshahin]] ([[User talk:Mrkshahin|talk]]) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | Why you have deleted this page? Please see the book ( http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6670577-L.jpg ). I am trying to contribute his biography and all books in Wikipedia. Please retrieve this page. What you require just ask me, I should give you all proofs. |
Revision as of 18:40, 26 November 2010
Archives |
---|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
|
edit |
Please Review Ganas page
I request assistance on the summary section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganas. I seem to be in an edit war with Campoftheamericas, and am unable to engage him in stating his case(s) on the talk page. At this point I am mostly concerned with getting agreement on what belongs in the summary, also the validity of some of his references, especially Ganas' own website. Thanks so much. Eroberer (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Eroberer, I've protected the page for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Eroberer (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is brewing
I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the talk page of Gideon Levy. There is a very disgruntled participant in the conversation, who seeks to make a complete rewrite of the lead. The article as it stands was the result of a long and very arduous negotiation, of which the complaining editor was a participant; the end of that negotiation was an agreed version that has held up without challenge for about eight months. The editor has recently disavowed any agreement with the existing version, and wishes to restore the previous version of the lead.
So far he has done nothing untoward (he earlier tried twice to restore the rejected version, but was reverted by other editors), but his latest posts suggest a possible intent to unilaterally make changes in the lead without agreement.
Thanks for your attention. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi
I just wanted to tell you that you have found a great way to respond to this. It always works for everybody, who knows he's wrong, but would never admit it. :) Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Settlement discussion
Phil, it doesn't look like Carol will be able to read through the discussion and come to a conclusion :[1]
What now? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Violation of 1RR on Yom Kippur War
here and here. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I've left a note on his talk page to give the opportunity to self-revert. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the elections
Dear PhilKnight, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.
You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard Talk 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: PhilKnight
|
Phil, just a quick reminder about the instructions above; your nomination statement should include a categorical declaration about any other accounts you have edited with (i.e. either naming them or if there are privacy/security concerns stating that they have been disclosed to the Committee). Cheers, Skomorokh 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Skomorokh, thanks for the reminder. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for that Phil. Skomorokh 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Block of User:Japol1
I noticed you blocked User:Japol1 for vandalism. I looked at his contribs and it appears that his edits were constructive, just incorrect according to the manual of style. Based on the talk page reply, I believe he didn't realize he had done anything wrong and was genuinely trying to help. I believe that a indefinite block may have been a little harsh, and perhaps a little bitey. Can you please reassess this? Thank you, --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Alpha Quadrant, you're saying this isn't vandalism? PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That edit was inappropriate, yes. This one was not thought [2] He even provided a source. --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- In your opinion, was this vandalism? PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Perhaps the account is being shared. Some of the edits are constructive and some are not. Either way the account should be blocked. My mistake, sorry for bothering you. --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Perhaps the account is being shared. Some of the edits are constructive and some are not. Either way the account should be blocked. My mistake, sorry for bothering you. --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- In your opinion, was this vandalism? PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- That edit was inappropriate, yes. This one was not thought [2] He even provided a source. --Alpha Quadrant talk 00:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom
Glad you're running. MastCell Talk 22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Best Wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
What should be done with this?
User:Stevonmfl incorrectly filled out a mediation cabal case back on 10/4/10.[3] I did respond to it, outlining why I didn't feel it even belonged there and why what Steve said was....well, not true. Anyway, the case, being incorrectly filed has sat in some sort of limbo. The nominator isn't a regular editor and has edited only one article since he tried filing the case. He hasn't followed up on it. I was going to PROD the page, but knowing him, it would be a waste of time because he'd just contest it and start accusing me of something. I then considered making an AfD nom since it's not listed under the MEDCAB cases and, as such, borders on being an attack page. Anyway, any suggestions on what to do with this page? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Niteshift36, I've deleted the page. PhilKnight (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, looking at your questions, I think just 9 & 10. To be honest, I think you could've combined these, and included them as a standard question. The others read like exam questions, and remind me of my finals. And not in a good way. :) PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your response. They are not exactly a menu that you pick and choose from. Candidates 2 years ago and last year managed them fine. At least the serious ones, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't worry then. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you want them copied over to your questions talk page or no? Perhaps I should have just asked that initially without all the explanation... ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, yes, copy all of them. I promise to answer 9 & 10, and if I have time, I may answer the others. PhilKnight (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Lar, yes, copy all of them. I promise to answer 9 & 10, and if I have time, I may answer the others. PhilKnight (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did you want them copied over to your questions talk page or no? Perhaps I should have just asked that initially without all the explanation... ++Lar: t/c 14:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, don't worry then. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your response. They are not exactly a menu that you pick and choose from. Candidates 2 years ago and last year managed them fine. At least the serious ones, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you fixed an edit at Carhartt. Actually, that needed to be reverted a bit more.
The story there is amusing. It's a classic case of "unflattering but verifiable" information about a company. Back in the 1990s, the company tried to promote their line of heavy-duty outerwear in the hip-hop community. Their NYC sales rep was actually quoted in the New York Times about their brand's popularity with crack dealers. That's in the article, and is the only ref to a WP:RS reliable source in the article.
The company has since repositioned their brand (the fad for baggy clothing being over) and every few months, tries to take that reference out.[4] The edits definitely come from the company. - check out this reverse IP search: [5]. It's not worth a block. --John Nagle (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi John, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
MEDILIG - List of open source healthcare software - Deleted with no reason.....
Hi, any particular reason behind this action 18:13, 15 November 2010 PhilKnight m (27,829 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Healis (talk) to last version by IsaiahNorton). Thanks for your help.Healis (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Healis, my edit was intended to remove an instance of File:Example.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sherif yet again
The AE hasn't even closed yet and he does it again--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The case was closed with no action. Am I missing something here? (and that's not a rhetorical question)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I posed this question to Ed Johnson. I'd like to get your view on this as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The template says 'one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period', so four reverts in a 24 hour period, even if they were in regard to different parts of the article, wouldn't be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I posed this question to Ed Johnson. I'd like to get your view on this as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
IP editing
Sorry I never got back to you, but it seems you're on track towards an attempted solution. Good luck!--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
minor question
Is it appropriate for me to add ([6]) the arbpia template to an article obviously within the scope of I/P? Note I don't intend to run around doing this on a lot of articles. Thanx--Misarxist 09:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Misarxist, yes, and thanks for adding the template. PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Your answer to my question
Thank you for giving a thoughtful answer to my question; it clarifies a lot about your stance. It seems that your primary issue is that the committee itself should sanction the problematic editors rather than "passing the buck", as I think you called it. If I may continue to pick your brains a bit on this idea: In some cases, problem editors have indeed been sanctioned, but discretionary sanctions have also been enacted (Climate Change as one recent example, where a whole slew of sanctions on specific editors were enacted, along with discretionary ones. The reasoning I've heard for this is that the specific sanctions are to address the immediate problem, while discretionary sanctions help admins deal with new problems (including newly arrived POV warriors). What's your opinion on this? Good idea, not so good idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think under those circumstances, where specific editors have been sanctioned, applying discretionary sanctions to deal with future problems is a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Request: clarification re expanded editing block
Three weeks ago you expanded my editing block to include my own user page. Unfortunately I didn’t get time to query the precise reason for this action as it was taken in the late in evening (GMT), only one and a half hours after notification was served. I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to which rule/s I was infringing so that I can avoid doing so again. Thanks Prunesqualer (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- When users are blocked, they're normally allowed to edit their user talk page in order to make an unblock request. In my opinion, in these edits you weren't contesting your block, but using your talk page for other purposes, such as soap boxing. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Could I ask: In your opinion would it be acceptable for me to reinsert these edits now that my edit block is over, since they “present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia”. Prunesqualer (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Although I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of these edits, you can reinstate them. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Could I ask: In your opinion would it be acceptable for me to reinsert these edits now that my edit block is over, since they “present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia”. Prunesqualer (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
1RR on Coandă-1910
FYI: I notice you hid Template:Editnotices/Page/Coandă-1910 that I created. I just un-hid it. 1RR is still in force. I recently had to block one of the participants because of it, so I want to give it another week or so. I am monitoring the activity on that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. There are a couple of things I don't understand. Firstly, why in this talk page note you mentioned the Six Day War. Secondly, could you tell me under which discretionary sanctions the article is covered? PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oops, I linked to a diff rather than the actual text - now fixed, thanks. The actual text (now archived) is correct: Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 8#1RR for ALL editors. I based it on something WGFinely once wrote on Talk:Six-Day War. Looks like some old words slipped through.
- As to discretionary sanctions: It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect?) from conversations with WGFinley that an administrator may impose a 1RR restriction on an article coming off full protection if it appears that protection is not working and a revert war will resume among contributors, as it did in this case based on veiled threats by the involved editors. I have also seen this done elsewhere where the people involved in the dispute suggested it. In the case of Coandă-1910, the participants were agreeable to it, their behavior has greatly improved as a result of the 1RR restriction, and they are more cooperative than the warring that was going on prior to the article being full protected. They appear to have settled into a groove where they can be constructive, so I think it's about time to lift the restriction. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to more contributions from you!
|
---|
|
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Jehochman
Is Jehochman a member of the mediation cabal? Does he have the authority to close a mediation request? Note here [7] Thank you.
ps I don't get this. Jehochman starts his judgement, "This is not a content dispute." What has that got to do with it? It reads like a complete non sequitur to me.--LevenBoy (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Mediation Cabal doesn't have members as such, and just about any user in good standing can close a request. In general, the Mediation Cabal deals with content disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please undo your un-close LevenBoy. MedCab isn't for the purpose of defining what's civil. That's a behavior dispute. Jehochman Talk 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. It is a behavior dispute that I want to address. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
AE on Cptnono
Hi Phil, Cptnono has admitted he was not right. IMO this AE should be closed with no sanctions ASAP because, if an editor admitted he was not right any sanctions at that point will be punitive, which sanctions are not supposed to be. This AE has already became quite a circus. Please do close it before it will get even worse. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mbz1, I've followed Boris's advice, and gave Cptnono a very short block. PhilKnight (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother PK. An ARBPIA notice was never issued to Sherif after closure of his AE. I only mention this because one was issued to AndresHerutJaim and the infractions were almost identical. Perhaps it was an oversight. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jiujitsuguy, thanks for letting me know, I'll notify Sherif9282. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother PK. An ARBPIA notice was never issued to Sherif after closure of his AE. I only mention this because one was issued to AndresHerutJaim and the infractions were almost identical. Perhaps it was an oversight. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Ekram Ahmed Lenin
Why you have deleted this page? Please see the book ( http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6670577-L.jpg ). I am trying to contribute his biography and all books in Wikipedia. Please retrieve this page. What you require just ask me, I should give you all proofs.Mrkshahin (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)