Jump to content

User talk:PhilKnight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 123.3.170.237 (talk) at 08:26, 29 October 2009 (→‎Restore: 3XX: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
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


    SatansHelper666

    You blocked him yesterday, but he's back and up to the same old vandalism (in the Mary Baker Eddy article. I'm not sure what to do (or who to contact) at this point. It's gotten way out of hand, and I don't believe he's willing to even enter into reasonableness. I'm sorry to be a pain. -- Digitalican (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA spam

    Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
    Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
    —Kww(talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User:Gibraltarian evading your earlier block

    Phil, you blocked User:Gibraltarian for block evasion via 212.120.243.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Unfortunately he's back and now using 212.120.246.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to continue his campaign of vandalism. Could you please do the necessary? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Chris, I've blocked the IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking Gibraltar IP's

    Be aware that most of the ADSL IP's are allocated from a pool, so in order to avoid a block, the user simply has to drop the connection and get another. However, a block of a day or so is likely to get the message across without inconveniencing anyone unduly - not that there are many active editors using gibtelecom currently anyway. I think this user does it more to make a point that he is still alive and to piss off ChrisO than any expectation of changing the articles. --Gibnews (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion backlog template

    Hey Phil, I noticed that you were the one who originally added the deletion backlog table to {{admindashboard}}. I had modeled a similar template on Commons to that, but it's not quite the same I don't think. It can be found at Commons:User:Killiondude/sandbox. In the "Category:Media without a license" drop down box, October 13's category link is still there as a redlink. Is that supposed to happen? Also, since it is currently October 21 in UTC, shouldn't it be showing October 14's subcats in all 3 drop downs? If you're not the right person to ask, perhaps you could point me in a certain direction? Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Killiondude, my guess, based on Commons:Category:Media without a license, is there aren't any images for that day, so the category wasn't created. PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a (created) category for that day, but it was cleared so I deleted the (empty) category. I don't believe that the enwiki template/table shows redlink'd category days, that's why I was asking. I've purged my sandbox page, and the templates that make it up, to no avail. Killiondude (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't realize. I guess there could be a difference in the Mediawiki software? PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Using unblock request as forum

    Thought you might want to take another quick look at User talk: 70.90.107.66. Thought this was interesting way of advoiding block. :-/ ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nevermind looks like you've already seen and taken care of it. Have a good morning ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion declined: Carlos Vidal Bolado

    Hello PhilKnight, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Carlos Vidal Bolado - a page you tagged - because: has played with Dizzy Gillespie; coverage in reliable sources. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Skomorokh, stating the obvious, I tagged the article, instead of just deleting it, because I wanted another admin to have a look. Anyway, thanks for your note - I've tidied the article up slightly. Incidentally, you can't use a search engine as a reference. PhilKnight (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please re-block!

    Greetings PhilKnight - a year ago to the day you blocked User talk:70.169.246.2 for a year. S/he/they are back at it.--Technopat (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Warnings are nice. It's quite possible that, 1 year later, it's not the same person and whoever made that single vandalism edit has no knowledge of our policies. At the very least, a few warnings would be appropriate before we block again. My two cents...  Frank  |  talk  21:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the message left by Frank, there's been more vandalism, so I've left another warning. I'll issue a block if the vandalism continues. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being out there an' keeping an eye on things! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Invite to WikiProject Water Sports

    I know your name is down, but the project had fallen by the wayside - so i'm trying to rejeuvinate it Happysailor (Talk) 22:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Delete

    Thank for the quick update on the speedy delete PhilKnight. Best Darigan (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Little Richard Article

    I greatly appreciated your input in the past. I do not know whether the mediation process being derailed was a result of people suspecting that there was a significant amount of sockpuppetry going on. I suspect so. Many of the users that the sockpuppet editor was using were used against my efforts. (He was actually was a fan of another artist - so he was not unbiased - and a guitarist that apparently did not understand rhythm and the dgegree of LR's impact.) If you have the interest I would greatly appreciate any feedback / input you might have to help make the Little Richard article more encyclopedic. I have been inserting a lot of information which I believe is relevant. The article was severely lacking and contained a lot of unsourced information. It has much improved recently.--Smoovedogg (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please consider reblocking User:Ludvikus

    I don't know if it's the same disruptive editing that led to the 2008 block, but he's certainly engaging in disruptive editing now. Could you explain your reasoning, or point to discussion sections where the arguments were presented? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Arthur, there was a discussion here, however if the unblocking hasn't worked out, then I don't object to reblocking the account. Given there was a discussion on WP:ANI, I guess I'd prefer if the reblock was proposed on the same noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please extend User:Jasonandtheargonautsmovie2's block to an indefinite one

    This user's MO has been to create articles that only have a copy of the Welcome template, the same as users User:Simoanstrength and User:Nicenwonderful. Based on this I believe this user to be a sockpuppet of the aforementioned editors and as such should be blocked indefinitely. Best, TheLetterM (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi TheLetterM, I've extended the block to indefinite. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ANI#User:Ludvikus revisited

    As the unblocking admin, maybe you should pitch in there. This is, what, the third major drama thread in the month since unblocking, and it is abundantly clear that Ludvikus has violated the promises he made in the unblock request. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow-up -- I didn't notice the thread above at first, but in my opinion it would be proper for you to assume responsibility here, since you are the one who unblocked early. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Looie496, thanks for the posts. I agree about the amount of time being spent - the 3rd item in User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior is possibly relevant. In the ANI thread, Ludvikus seems to lack understanding of the behavioral policies, for example he argues that Arthur Rubin has to earn the right to have good faith assumed. In this context, unless someone is prepared to attempt mentorship, I'm leaning towards a reblock. I'll post on ANI shortly. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Restore: 3XX

    I'm not a regular contributor or editor at wikipedia, so please excuse me if there is a prodcedure I miss.

    I would like to ask that the 3XX wikipedia page be restored.

    There has been some discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3XX about whether the page should have been deleted.

    As a former volunteer broadcaster on the station, I argue that it should be returned, to explain the history of the station during it's operating years and it's downfall.

    The announcement of the station going off-air was made on Jock's Journal - This website (and it's twice monthly publication) is very popular within the Australia Radio Industry.

    The link to the page which had the article is http://web.archive.org/web/20080822022848/http://www.jocksjournal.com/

    Also (I am struggling to find the old link!) Radioinfo.com.au - which is Australia's MOST POPULAR website for those in the radio industry, reported on the news.

    Mediaspy, Surfnet and the Google Group aus.radio.broadcast also reported on the demise.

    The station was a nice, but known station in Melbourne - if you wish I can try and track down and scan articles talking about 3XX in the VFL (Victorian Football League) record. 3XX use to broadcast the VFL in it's last 2 years - which is Australia's OLDEST Football Compeition.

    If you require any further information, please post here. When the 3XX page is restored I'll chance down more links to show the relevance of 1611 AM 3XX to the Melbourne radio landscape.

    (PS> Some people struggled to find 3XX on the ACMA website. Though not longer there, it was not a commercial, community or narrow-caster - it was actually a 'narrow-band' station. Similar to the 'Section 40, Non-BSB stations')

    Peter Holden. Former 3XX Volunteer Broadcaster Ex-Commercial Radio Broadcaster

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight&oldid=322698174"