User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions

; 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
	edit

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:01, 12 September 2011

Deletion review for Sean Berdy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sean Berdy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaverc (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester wikimeet

Hi Phil. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at meta:Meetup/Manchester. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for letting me know. Hopefully I'll be able to make the 17 September wikimeet. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I am considering changing my ID from Jeepday to my given name. I don't really have anything to hide on a personal level, so I imagine it would only be technical challenges. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on topic?

Are there Technical challenges, SUL Jeepday SUL JeepdaySock?
On a personal level, what are your thoughts when you changed?
Jeepday (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeepday, when I changed my username, I only changed my name on Wikipedia, on the other projects, Commons, Wiktionary and so on, I just created another account, and redirected the old one. I guess to make the change on other projects properly, you should contact a local crat. On a personal level, there was a small advantage in some cases where someone is slightly more polite because of editing under a real name. However this is balanced by perhaps more stress in some situations, where someone is angry and name calling - I think it's slightly easier to be detached when someone is saying 'Addhoc you're an idiot', because 'Addhoc' was only a username. Anyway, hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That helps thank you, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alliance Peru Bolivi 1873

How can you recommend a mediation if the issue comes from a mediation?: Please, take a look to Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue., Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keysanger. Thanks for explaining, under the circumstances, I guess the next stage should be either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster rationale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Poster rationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Poster rationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Album rationale

Template:Album 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Entebbe and 1RR / Reverts by CWenger

I've been working on cleaning up Operation Entebbe (an Isaeli military operation), and unfortunately another editor CWenger (who has a pro-Israel user box) keeps on adding false, ridiculous claims that the operation is somehow related to a US military operation. The article has a 1RR restriction due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, but CWenger has ignored this and made multiple reverts just now. Can you please take a look at this? Dimension31 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimension31, sorry for not replying earlier. Infractions of the 1RR restriction should be reported to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. However, you should be aware that if you have gone over 1RR, you could also be sanctioned. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University rationale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:University rationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:University rationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Video rationale

Template:Video 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping RfM

You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Images and Media

Hello PhilKnight, I have prepared an drive yesterday to get the most images moved to the Wikimedia Commons. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011. It will start at 12 years ago or more precisely at 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC). There are some awards you may get. You may sign up now. We need lots of sysops too to delete the moved images (backlog may be made). ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a party

Hi. Is it ok if I do that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted on the arbitration mailing list asking whether there any objections to adding him as a party. If there are no objections, I'll request that a clerk adds him. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFCCOM

Just to re-interate what I said in the abortion case I think its a bloody good idea. You should take it forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In all honesty, the essay was prompted by a comment made by Iridescent in the last ArbCom election, and heavily influenced by discussion on the ArbCom mailing list. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a first step towards this having somewhere to request RFC's to be formally closed as that makes ones that aren't ultra clear possible to move forward from, and secondly having somewhere high-profile to list controversial discussions would probably be good too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Seal rationale

Template:Seal 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. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content arbtration thoughts

Having seen your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop#Procedure_implemented, you might be interested in what I've been working on in my sandbox. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies

Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Off2riorob, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, many thanks for the attention. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
Message added 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi PhilKnight, You have previously voted to decline the case against La goutte de pluie because of an open RfC/U against the user, including possible sanctions being discussed. I have presented a new diff in my section to show that it is highly unlikely the RfC will be successful (considering RfCs are non-binding), and would like to request that you revisit the situation. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strange Passerby, thanks for letting me know. I notice that Jimbo has posted in the discussion on Elle's user talk, and explained the situation. In my understanding the community can issue binding sanctions, that is, enforceable by blocks, and in this context, I consider there is a good chance that the community will be able to resolve this situation. There's some information about this process at Wikipedia:Community sanction. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am however, open to considering many other remedies proposed. I am simply not convinced that the editors involved are at all informed of the issues at hand before they called for some blanket prohibition. (Similarly, unlike how they advocated, an IP rangeblock against problematic IPs is untenable, because it would involve blocking half of Singapore.) Furthermore, unlike many other editors with much free time on their hands, I have not been going around different talk pages canvassing potential allies, so it is my impression that the sample of commenters on the RFC may be problematic. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I suggest you consider voluntarily following restrictions along the lines of those being discussed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, most of the commenters at the RFC are people who I have opposed in editing disputes -- they are really parties to the case. I really thought I had no real conflict with Zhanzhao and Strange Passerby, as I take it, I was only using the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a part of the project that is ill-watched. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links are being deleted without justification

I am the Executive Director of Earthwave Society, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to conservation through information and education. I have made 3 attempts this evening, possibly 4, at adding an external link to Earthwave Society on the following Wiki pages:

Alligator Gar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_gar - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/gar.htm Piping Plovers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piping_Plover - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/plover.htm Paddlefish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddlefish - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/paddlefish.htm Sturgeon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/sturgeon.htm Crayfish - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Tern - added an external link to www.earthwave.org/crayfish.htm

Each time I added an external link, one of the volunteer editors deleted it for invalid reasons, including "link not necessary", or "promotional", or "spam", etc. The user names of the editors I can recall are Dream_Focus, Kuru, and Smarkflea. It appears they are all playing some kind of silly game on Wikipedia, and will absolutely not listen to reason. I have met all of Wiki's requirements for adding an external link, and can see no reason why I'm having to go through such nonsense. If you will please review our index page, and mission statement, you will see that Earthwave Society is a legitimate non-profit organization that often works in cooperation with both Federal & State Resource Agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I personally chose the above listed Wiki sites because they focus on species we have covered extensively over the years. Earthwave Society actually pioneered the very first video documentation of alligator gar, paddlefish, and all seven North American species of sturgeon. Our conservation efforts have received international acclaim, and our programs have been utilized by the USF&WS for public awareness projects, and educational kiosks. Our video documentation has been distributed to public libraries, schools, and universities around the world, and it has been broadcast internationally at Wildlife Film Festivals, etc. A link to Earthwave Society certainly deserves a listing in Wikipedia on relevant sites. I will be extremely appreciative if you will look into this, and do whatever you feel is fair and necessary. Thanking you in advance....

Betty Wills username: Atsme Atsme (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]