User talk:PhilKnight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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


Good afternoon[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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 [[1]] 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. DocumentError (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @PBS:- 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment.
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".[2] 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribslogs) 13:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User:RishabhCine is back[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 Aurora Shooting[edit]

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)