Jump to content

User talk:PhilKnight/Archive38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding editing advice

Valid points. Thanks. I do tend to get a bit irate when that particular company edits or spins articles about them, but all the same I do appreciate the occasional reminder to play nice with others...even the trolls! Again, thanks. --averagejoe (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too :-) Diego (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

ok didnt no but i need that account name by it slef tho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan d dog20 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Joi

Can you please restore Ashley Joi's wikipedia page? She is an incredibly talented singer/songwriter & it is important that people be able to find out information on her. Thank You68.96.170.111 (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved

The disputes with Ashley Kennedy3 on Israel-Palestine articles have continued unabated since the warning was added to her page (and mine). Now she is libeling an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, on the al-Tantura page, because of her objection to a certain quote from an interview with him that ruins her argument. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? She has also continued her pattern of creating new articles with information lifted verbatim from a source after it is deleted from other pages as inappropriate (and probably a copyright violation). The latest article is Beit Jala reprisal raid, which I tagged for deletion (a tag that someone promptly removed). I hate to bother you, but this is getting to the point where something has to be done. Thanks.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gilabrand, thanks for letting me know about this. Regarding Benny Morris and al-Tantura, I gather the problem has largely been resolved. I agree the article should primarily be about the geographical location, so the 'peanuts' quote shouldn't be included. Regarding the Beit Jala reprisal raid, I think Ynhockey's approach of trying to improve the article is worth pursuing. I'll leave a note for Ashley regarding the concerns you've mentioned. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ashley refuses to quit. She keeps reverting sourced information on Beit Jala reprisal raid (took place in 1952) and introducing some source she has found for 1953. Asking her to read the source more carefully doesn't help. She continues to use edit summaries that accuse people of POV. She messes up every single article she touches, putting in irrelevant information and engaging in WP:SYN. I have tried very hard to remain civil, but her disruptive edits are impossible to ignore. I don't think any of the notices left on her page have made the slightest impact. --Gilabrand (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This problem has not been resolved, so I don't believe it should be archived. If you can't help, I would appreciate your pointing me toward someone who can. --Gilabrand (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gilabrand, I didn't see your post of the 29th, obviously if I had, I wouldn't have archived. I'll have a look at the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, the "she" is a he, and the edit warring continues with his constant violation of every Wikipedia policy on the books. At the moment, see Beit Jala reprisal raid, but every other article he has touched will show the same aggressive, disruptive editing. Allowing him to continue on his merry way is turning Wikipedia into a travesty and a farce--Gilabrand (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The disruption continues and this editor is getting crazier and more rabid by the day. Why are my complaints being ignored????--Gilabrand (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philknight,
I am aware that sysops are not there to keep the "kinders garden" quiet but I would like to add my voice to Gilabrand's (just 2 line here above - 15 minutes ago)
It is not possible to discuss with Ashley. I have been trying for 2 weeks to discuss with her/him and I have been quarreling with her/him the whole day.
user:Nishidani and user:Ynhockey share our mind.
We are 4 editors with quite different views of the I-P topic and who have already had strong disagreements on some issue. But we could discuss. Ashley just seems not to understand.
What can be done ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oups. I have just noticed you blocked her. Hope this will help. Thank you.
Do you think somebody could "assist" her to explain wikipedia's principles ?
Ceedjee (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've given Ashley a 24 hour block for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we could find someone to adopt Ashley, that would probably help. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I to would like to add my piece. Referenced work being taken out without discussion is disruptive editing and is practised by ceedjee. Who commented that the title of 1948 Palestinian exodus meant that all other events that did not occur in 1948 should be removed, even though Benny himself in his book takes the exodus up to and including 1950. So I did then start the article (1949 to 1956 Palestinian exodus) with that referenced material. Ceedjee then made the claim that it was OR and rather than open a discussion on the talk page slapped a delete tag on the article..... Moving on to the Beit Jala raid, again here Gilabrand tried for a delete article as she claimed it had never happened. A two second google showed otherwise. The beit Jala raid article, which I hasten to add I started suddenly gets an Israeli only POV by being highly selective with Benny material. I then point out some of the material that has been left out, now the Israeli POV should be pointed out as Israeli POV and other POV should also be included but we have Galibrand and ceedjee pointing out that as there are 2 of them and only one of me, the Israeli POV must get pride of place and all other referenced work that shows a contrary view gets removed. That leaves only one alternative, this is to add the POV tag.....then we have the ceedjee idea about what books are suitable for wiki; see below...I do not want problems but I do believe a rounded article should not show just one POV..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G6 deletions of User talk pages of blocked sockpuppets

I notice that you deleted the following user talk pages;

All are the talk pages of blocked sockpuppets (Checkuser confirmed) of User:Dan d dog20

Given that these pages contain evidence of what was said by the puppeteer whilst maintaining the charade (including statements that we should check the IP, which would confirm that they were not the same), and given that we delete user talk pages only in exceptional circumstances, I cannot agree with your view that deleting these pages was uncontroversial housekeeping.

In fact, it is, as far as I can tell, unheard of to remove the talk page history of a sockpuppet, and I would ask you to restore all three pages.

Mayalld (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayalld, in my understanding, talk pages of indefinitely blocked accounts are routinely deleted, and only the user page of a sock puppet is retained. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Databarracks

I'm not particularly vested in whether this article stays or goes, but I'm curious because I originally deleted it per G7 but then reverted myself because there were other substantive contributors to the page; therefore the creator shouldn't be able to request deletion per G7. –xenocidic (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xenocidic, I've restored and commented on the AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cheers - while the article will probably be deleted anyway I think the other contributor should have a say - especially because the improvements they made were deleted without justification. –xenocidic (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Kaplan, Inc. editing dispute. It was helpful to get a neutral third party POV. Best, krb2182 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Progress

Hello! You just put a hang-on tag on the article Myth of Progress. Please be aware that the article's creator has repeated removed the original Speedy Delete tag four times -- ignoring warnings and violating 3RR. I hope that you can intervene in this matter, as the editor is blatantly ignoring Wikipedia rules. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!
Thanks!

Thank you, PhilKnight, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tali Hatuel

A tiff at the above page. I saw 'settler' eliminated from the lead, which I found incomprehensible, I restored it, but had to modify the language to 'settler resident in/at' Gush Katif to respect the previous editor's sensible specification of the town she lived in. This was quickly reversed by User:Jayjg. A possible edit-war developed. I and he have a record between us that that has a certain edge to it , and I will not be dragged into a edit-war if this is what the game is about, let alone elicit by this note your return to the article page to adjudicate. But since I find the sequence rather bizarre, having explained why on the talk page, I would appreciate it if you could drop me a note on whether 'settler' is POV. It's late here, and a long hot day. Perhaps I have missed something, but I simply cannot for the life of me understand why restoring 'settler' to a text, in conformity with the facts, should be taken as implying that I or anyone else approves of the actions of terrorists who murdered the woman. regards Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please again consider unblock of WorkerBee74

Please reconsider your decision not to unblock WorkerBee74. Your reasons weren't bad, and this isn't a criticism, but I've done a lot of research into the Ayers-Obama connection, and I know the sourcing is solid on this (Here's another source from the Tribune newspapers.) The Washington Post web page that WorkerBee74 cited is WP:RS-compliant, and that page (a secondary source) linked to an Illinois state government page showing the $200 contribution, which is direct financial "support", making Ayers without doubt a "former supporter" (in 1995 he also hosted in his home a get-to-know-you meeting for Obama and people in the state senate district Obama wanted to represent); the material was also BLP-compliant, as per WP:WELLKNOWN section of WP:BLP and that policy's sourcing guidelines. In declining his unblock request, you mention In this context, giving undue weight to a political endorsement from a criminal could reasonably be perceived as a BLP violation. Well, if it is undue weight, it's nevertheless about true information that is relevant in context: Stephanopolous was asking Obama about his ties with the controversial Ayers, so there is a reason to include the information. Nor was undue weight brought up at the time. Wikipedia, incidentally, has an article on the subject: Bill Ayers election controversy (the article still needs work, but the subject's notable).

Scjessey, in reverting, was not asking WorkerBee74 to take it to the talk page and Scjessey didn't do it himself. The edit summaries do explain the simple difference between the two editors -- a pretty simple factual difference that WorkerBee74 had correctly asserted with evidence. It was certainly dumb of him to march up to the edge of 3RR on a BLP and without going to the discussion page.

I'm not qualified to say whether or not WorkerBee74 has a behavior problem rather than a momentary lapse, and I haven't compared his history to Scjessey's, but it seems to me this is a situation of what's good for the goose is good for the gander: two editors with previous blocks for edit warring; three reverts with edit summaries which did actually address the issue; one gets a three-day block the other gets off scott free. If each editor sees that the other is treated the same way, they might be more likely to get the message going forward. My suggestion would be to unblock this one rather than block the other (a report was filed on Scjessey lower down on the 3RR page with almost the exact same evidence), but I'm not experienced in this kind of thing. I'm not an uninvolved editor. WorkerBee74 has supported some of my proposals on the Talk:Barack Obama page, and Scjessey has opposed them, but of course I'm not asking you to take sides. Please reconsider; sorry about the long post. Noroton (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please do me the courtesy of a reply? Noroton (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, apologies for not replying earlier. I declined the unblock more on the basis there was edit warring, than on the sourcing and living person issues. I think what you're saying about the sourcing and living persons issues is reasonable, however, this is of course a content decision. However, more than anything else, I fully agree with you that given how controversial this subject is, WorkerBee74 should have used the talk page to develop a consensus, instead of edit warring. In all honesty, my main concern is that he hasn't acknowledged that he could have handled this situation better. PhilKnight (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just edit warring and no content (BLP) issues are involved, then Scjessey's conduct was identical to WorkerBee's, it seems to me. One gets blocked for three days while nothing happens to the other. I realize Scjessey's case wasn't in front of you, but I think it corrodes the sense that WorkerBee was being treated fairly, particularly when the edit warring didn't go over the 3RR edge. Since we want WorkerBee to see the value of behavioral policies, I think we should give him the sense that he wasn't being treated differently from Scjessey -- especially in a case where you've got people in partisan camps looking on. I think it would do a lot of good, when we're already more than 24 hours into a three-day block, to grant some leniency under the circumstances. Thanks for listening, no reply necessary. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Drive Page Mediation

Thank you for your help with mediation of the dispute on the Dean drive pages. I see that the article has been protected. While the protection was made necessary for regrettable reasons, I think it will be a good thing in the long run. There have been altogether too many problems with the page from edits by overzealous skeptics and fringe editors. Perhaps now the article can evolve in a more controlled way that eliminates periodic damage by extremists in both camps.

Thanks again for your help. I hope that the discussion continues on the Dean drive talk page and that some constructive edits emerge which can be incorporated into the main article. 71.35.28.231 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[User I][reply]

Note

You may wish to participate here.[1] --Elonka 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Contentious AfD

Hi. If you should happen to be around in the near future and have time/desire to close a contentious AfD, there's one in need of sagacity over here. I'd checked with User:Keeper76 to see if he was around and interested, because we've collaborated in the past, but evidently he's on wikibreak.

I've been asked to help out here by a participant, and there are a couple of reasons why I can't or feel I should not. I don't have much time on Wiki in the next day or so, and it can take me a while to evaluate a contentious AfD. Also, while the editor who asked for my help obviously intended to present it neutrally, I'm concerned that his presenting his summary of positions may lend a perception of campaigning so that my neutrality might come into question.

The AfD is over-ripe and may be closed anyway in the near future. From what I understand, not only is the AfD contentious, but evidently there is some related edit-warring at the article, so I'm inclined to agree that this one would be better closed sooner rather than later. If you can help, fabulous and thank you very much. If you can't, I imagine some other admin will get it soon, as there are only 12 open from that day. But I thought to try to help expedite it to make sure that the situation remains calm. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC) (Oh, p.s. should you choose to reply, I'm watching your page. I'm one of those "conversations linked" people. However, if you're one of those "answer at your pages" people, that works for me, too. :D)[reply]

Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks, but I haven't closed very many contentious discussions, and have been active in editing in the area of new religious movements, so I could be perceived to be overly involved. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phil. I appreciate your taking a look. :) I'll see if somebody else is available. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk Wiki Page

Hello Phil,

Scott L here from Ghostly Talk Paranormal Talk Radio. I was wondering if you would contact me with the details of the deletion of the Ghostly Talk wiki page. We were actually contacted by an administrator from Wiki about a year and a half ago (roughly) who stated that Ghostly Talk was relevant enough to have it's own page. Would like to know what we could do to get the page back up.

Gtscottl (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Scott L. :)[reply]


Thank you Phil!! :) Gtscottl (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Scott L. :)[reply]

Don Pohren

Greetings. I am surprised there is no wiki entry on Don Pohren, the "Flamencologist". In searching you seemed to be the only person who has mentioned him and you seem like an active user. Maybe you could write one?

Or I could start one as a stub and let others fix it.

Here are resources:

Good interview http://www.deflamenco.com/especiales/pohren/index.jsp Salon article http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/10/02/pohren/ books http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=pohren&title=&lang=en&submit=Begin+search&new_used=*&destination=cz&currency=CZK&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr

Vincent.fx (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Espuelas external references

Phil - your issue with the external references in the Espuelas article may be due, perhaps, with your unfamiliarity with the subject. Espuelas is among the most famous technology/Internet figures of the Latin world - and his story and activities have been covered for over 10 years by media, academics and book authors all over the world. What's clearly missing from the article are the myriad references --mostly from Latin America and Spain (and not in English) - that help to paint a full picture of who he is, warts and all. In other words, there is a clear U.S. bias to the references that the various contributors have added. In my view, if the article is going to be truly reflective of the man's history, it will need a broader, not narrower base of references so that people researching him will get an accurate picture -- one not simply projected through the provincialism of a U.S.-only point of view.

Having said that, I have noticed a couple of press-release like references which I will remove.


Thanks!

Risala99

Avlis

Could you please expand a bit on the reason(s) you chose to keep Avlis? I am concerned because the last four keep notvotes were from single purpose accounts. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlegm Rooster, thanks for prompting me on this - I've undone my close. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Phil, I am working on an AfD response, please check your email. - thanks - GaryECampbell (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daria images

No, Phil. There is fair-use rationale for these images. Your tags are unwarranted. ----DanTD (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the images lack a rationale for use in an article, however I shouldn't have used the tags in that manner. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they didn't. They described the characters. Image:Lane Family Chaos.jpg not only describes the rest of the family, but life that the family has when they're all together. ----DanTD (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Etiquette in Europe

Thanks for your advice on the topic. In the end, the whole thing fell through because some editor felt strongly about "saving the content". However, at least some cleanup work was done on the article, so maybe something came out of it. We'll see... Averell (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk Logo on Ghostly Talk Wiki Page...

Hello Phil,

Thanx again for your help with the page last week!! It looks like the logo did not come back though, would you like me to send you the logo again so it can be added to the page?

Gtscottl (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Scott L. :)[reply]

Concepts in contract common law

You deleted this...could you do me a favor and make sure the prod wasn't contested by someone? I have it showing up in the prodsum list as a "mismatched date", which usually means someone removed it, and the removal was reverted (and the date it was added was way back in May). I'm not contesting it myself, but something seems odd about it, I just wanted to make sure nobody pulled any shenanigans. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UsaSatsui, it was contested by JeanLatore, a disruptive user, who has now been blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight/Archive38&oldid=1186576952"