Jump to content

User talk:PhilKnight/Archive76

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

Your input requested regarding an AE discretionary sanction

See here. If you have any opinion on the second issue he raises, I'd be glad to hear that, too.--Chaser (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, since Nableezy deleted it from his talk page: there is something weird about how you are suggesting that violating 1RR a second time in a week simply gets another minor block (by advising Nableezy that the three day block could be reduced). --Luckymelon (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Luckymelon, to some extent, I draw a distinction between editors who revert changes which are clearly in contradiction to policy and guidelines, and editors who introduce those changes. To take an extreme example, lets say a bunch of new editors were to rewrite the introduction to earth so the article now said the earth was flat, and an edit war followed. If the area was under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, then I feel that admins are given a wider latitude to prevent disruption, so I'd probably revert to before the edit war, protect the article for a lengthy period, issue short blocks to the fringe pov pushing editors, and not block anyone else who went over 3RR. In other words, to a limited extent, I think factoring in whether the reverts were in accordance with policy and guidelines is acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed case

I noticed you closed the mediation on Authors of the Bible but it is still listed on the main mediation cabal page as an open case. Do you know why this is?RomanHistorian (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RomanHistorian, there's a bot which archives closed cases. I think it runs every hour or so. PhilKnight (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly reused the page to ask for "reopening" with new scope (i.e., opening a new but closely related case on the same page). Hope you or someone can mediate quickly; EdJohnston was asked to do essentially the same thing but remained silent, and the RFC process is not bringing resolution. (It might also be appropriate to boldly move the page to reflect the new scope.) JJB 22:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Ed defers to you at his talk. I went ahead with the bold move in that all participants presumably have it watchlisted. Hope you have a moment to propose guidance. JJB 02:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist mummies

I saw your name on the Buddhism Wikiproject and would like some input on this article. The editor in question has a track record of dubious sources, and another editor, who can read Chinese, has commented on this article at my talk page. The subject is fine, eg [1], but not the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougweller, I've added Buddhist mummies to my watchlist and I'll help out if necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Debating Society

Thanks for chiming in over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago University Debating Society. Would you mind looking over the references provided by Pointillist in the discussion? I just wanted to make sure you saw them since you only mentioned the ones currently in the article. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding usarmymilitary

I sorry if I'm doing this the wrong way. Mr PhilKnight I've created this extra account because I didn't know how to contact you any other way since i'm banned on my other account. My other account is usarmymilitary and some got onto it and vandalized some pages while I was overseas with the Army. I'm requesting that you please unban it you may contact me via email at usarmymilitary@gmail.com thaks in Advance.Armyman1975 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armyman1975 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and in particular the Examples of bad unblock requests section. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I credit this temporary account because my other account was banned by you for vandalism, I'm in the military and some got into my accounts and messed with them while I was deployed overseas I have been banned for over a year I am requesting that my account be unbanned my other account user name is usarmymilitary. Thank you for your assistance. I can be contacted at usarmymilitary@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armyman1975 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubashkins, union dues, and all that

Actually, the "union dues" issue was that the employees paid union dues via payroll deduction, and the Rubashkins siphoned off the money instead of remitting it to the union. (Well, according to the NLRB decision, once they paid with a bounced check, then they stopped paying at all.) That's considered theft, because the money never belonged to the employer. Corporate executives have gone to jail for that[2], but the R. operation got off with a fine. Several of the other family members have done Federal prison time. As white-collar crime goes, it's a common pattern - business over-expands, business gets into trouble, management starts stealing or committing fraud to stay afloat, crime is discovered, business goes bankrupt, criminal prosecution follows. See Enron and Global Crossing for big-scale cases of this, and it's basically what happened with the larger R. family businesses, including Agriprocessors. The unusual thing is that it happened more than once. They don't seem to have learned from their mistakes. The 2008 Village Voice article [3] is probably the best overview of the family's issues. A collective feeling that the law didn't apply to them combined with management incompetence seems to have led the family into disaster after disaster. Meanwhile, over at deletion review, the consensus seems to be developing that restarting the article as Rubashkin family would be appropriate. "Crime family" has too many bad connotations, but the family, as a group, is quite notable, with extensive press coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for clarifying. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist mummies

Zhou Fengchen, Yinlian and Dashi-Dorzho Itigilov are natural.Nature following and the Tao (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand. I'm not asking for your opinion, I'm requesting a reliable source. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced in their refs. Google translate may help you. Nature following and the Tao (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't replaced the {{citation needed}} tag with a citation to a reliable source. In due course, unless a citation is added, the sentence will be removed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sulmues

Could you check the message he left on his new talkpage [4] and assist him, since it seems that he can't access his old account anymore.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZjarriRrethues, I don't consider there is a problem here - the user has been blocked so isn't supposed to be editing. PhilKnight (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick request / query

I asked the same at User talk:Michael Hardy, hopefully you're still active after I post this!

Phil, saw you were active in Recent Contribs. This account is an alt of User:Bigger digger that I've set up to use Igloo and the like so as not to clutter up my normal watchlist. Discovered I need WP:ROLLBACK on this account, and I can't request it because this account is too new. Is it possible for an admin to confirm it and add rollback? Could you do that please? Thanks, Mechanical digger (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I got side tracked. Anyway, you've got rollback now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, was plugging away with the normal account. Thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fletcher FD-25 page mess up - INNOCENT! <GRIN>

Thanks for straightening that page out and stating "good faith" edits by myself. But I found it that way when I added that external link to an article showing the first FL-25. I was going to ask someone to go over and try and make some sense out of that edit mess -- ie it was way beyond my pay grade experience. Wonder what happened in the first place? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackehammond, a new editor accidentally messed up the formatting, at first I thought it was you and reverted your edits, however I then self-reverted and undid the new editor's mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs

Hi there PhilKnight, I think you may have done this on accident, but you deleted Category:Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs as empty, though it's tagged with {{emptycat}}. Just thought I'd like you know I've restored the category. Regards. — ξxplicit 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit, thanks for fixing my mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone to watch over me

Thanks for this at Stadium. I've done that for others and thought I'd never be so careless! Mechanical digger (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity myths mediation

Hello Phil

Are you going to work on this? I need to know because otherwise I am going to post at ANI about User:Ryoung122's blatant conflict of interest. The article has a long history of being stalled and some decisive action is needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly my intention to help out if I can. I only added my name as co-mediator a couple of days ago, and I'm still getting up to speed. I'll try to post something later on today. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting us rolling again, but I believe that the last 3 days we have been at a standstill due (IMHO) to my questions not getting answered. IMJ has also been off-wiki 6 days. What is the next step? JJB 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A real interaction ban violation

This is to inform you about interaction ban violation together with false statements and personal attack: "My contributions are far more numerous than those of the other parties of the interaction ban, whose material is of a poor, openly biased quality and whose English is much worse than mine."

I uploaded hundreds of my own high resolution images. I started more than 50 DYK articles with only one related and one partly related to I/P conflict. The one from today Earth's shadow was viewed almost 20,000 times. Claiming that my contributions are "a poor, openly biased quality" is a false statement and a personal attack.

Commenting on my English skills is a personal attack.

The fact that the comments were made while the user was blocked for another real and big interaction ban violation should not be taken into account. The current block should be extended, and extended big.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbz1, I agree the entire comment was very poor, an example of the worst kind of battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you going to sanction the user?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I agree with Cptnono's analysis of the situation. Or in other words, you possibly violated the ban by letting me know. If Factomancer has genuinely quit, then I could justify taking no further action. If he edits after the 72 hour block has expired, then I think a lengthy block is required, because to be perfectly honest, I've had enough of this. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having said that, I think I'd prefer not to have this problem continuing any further. Chesdovi was blocked for a month for being disruptive to the point of distraction, and Factomancer has in my humble opinion achieved the same. I'll block for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have posted to your page again but because you said you found my post here unusual and possibly even a ban violation I would like to clarify the conditions of my ban for you please. As stated here "If any of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner". So as you could see there is nothing unusual in my request at your talk page. It is made in a good faith and within the rules of my editing restrictions.
Phil, I understand that you are fed up with that. I assure you so am I. If you have just ignored AE request, as Georgewilliamherbert, who BTW wrote the ban conditions, ignored the same complain posted at his talk page , it would have ended right there. Thanks for acting on my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two things that are upsetting about this. 1)Mbz1 is in violation 2) There were two requests at AE with time stamps near yours, Phil Knight, and you refused to acknowledge them. Mbz1 shouldn't have breached the ban but if you would have not give Facts a pass (or at least made note as to why the block was not lengthened) then this wouldn't be here.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cptnono, regarding you first statement, I agree. That said, I'm personally not going to block Mbz1, but won't object if another admin does. However, I disagree with the second comment, if anything I'm spending too much time on the I-P conflict, and think that devoting my energies to other aspects of the project would be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on a possible discussion

Yesterday I came across a perennial proposal for moving maintenance tags to talk pages. Some editors think tags like template:cleanup or template:update are pointless and distracting to readers, while others think they are useful in warning of defects and encouraging improvements. There have been various lengthy and unstructured debates ending with no consensus. My guess is the subject is just too broad. But it might be possible to get consensus on style guidelines, maybe making the less urgent warnings less obtrusive, and it might be possible to get consensus that specific tags should always or never appear on article pages. That would be useful. I don't want to waste people's time by launching yet another incoherent debate that has no hope of being resolved. If there is to be a discussion, it should be carefully focussed and structured, like the discussion on unsourced BLPs a while ago. Any thoughts? Forget it? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aymatth2, my own preference would be to replace the large boiler point tags at the top of articles with small icons similar to the padlock icon sometimes used on protected pages. However, I suspect I'm in a very small minority. I guess you could set up an RfC on this issue, however as I think you realize, the chances are it probably won't result in a clear consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point launching an RfC that will burn up hundreds of editor hours with no hope of reaching a conclusion. Smaller tags could be better, maybe not quite as small as the padlock icon. See right for a crude attempt. Maybe one way to work on the problem would be to try to get agreement on placement and appearance of one template, like the cleanup template, via the talk page, then go after other templates one by one. Perhaps that is too sneaky. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I like sneaky. I think you could propose to create an option in an existing template, the same way {{protected}} can appear as a large box or a small padlock, depending on whether an option of small=yes is appended. PhilKnight (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be too difficult. A lot of the message boxes use template:Mbox, a meta-template that accepts a "small" parameter. See above for a version of template:cleanup modified by adding one line: "|small={{{small|}}}". Omit the small parameter, and the template is formatted normally. The trick would be to first have template:cleanup and similar warning templates pass through the "small" parameter to mbox, which should be uncontroversial: easy to do, no impact on existing usage, gives editors more control. The next step would be to get the defaults changed to small=right, or to recommend that usage. I will see if I can get this moving. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Cleanup#Small parameter. Maybe I was not sneaky enough - should have reported it as a bug "small parameter not working". Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at Talk:Country Yossi.
Message added 09:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kenny Marino

Hi, i recently made a page and i'm having trouble adding it to categories. Can you help? Thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:13 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the article called? PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny Marino. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:43 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but he was actually born in 1943. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:20 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

Do I really need to make a 3RR report on this editor Beesee11 they have stated that they dont care about 3rr on their talk page and have now reverted 5 times on Anne Boleyn. Mo ainm~Talk 20:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mo, the user has been blocked by LessHeard vanU. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was just coming to say the same. Mo ainm~Talk 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfA ping

Undelete category

Hey, can you undelete Category:Replaceable non-free use to be decided after 29 October 2010? The templates were altered by the images' uploader so they were set for a later date, I've reset the correct date but the category is gone. SwarmTalk 04:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tedescoboy22

Per the comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tedescoboy22, I have now indefinitely blocked Tedescoboy22 and informed him about it on his talk page. Do you think this decision is right? If so, should I remove the RfC from the listing? If not, I can unblock Tedescoboy22 and let the RfC run its course. JIP | Talk 20:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JIP, given the concerns he was deliberately causing disruption, I agree with your block. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1RR problems

Hello Phil. At the page Psagot users are removing tags placed on the article and discussed on the talk page. See here, here (an IP that my limited testing says is being used as a proxy), and here. What should I do in this situation. Any edit that I make to try to remedy the issues is summarily reverted and when I place a tag to alert people about the issues and direct them to the talk page that is also reverted. The tags specify that they should not be removed without consensus but editors such as Jaakobou (talk · contribs) and Shuki (talk · contribs) and this suspicious IP continue to do exactly that. How should I deal with this issue? nableezy - 16:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nableezy, I recommend focusing on the underlying dispute, as opposed to the tag. Is the dispute something that could be resolved using a Request for Comment, or is mediation needed? PhilKnight (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A successful mediation requires a good faith effort by each party, I dont think that when one party removes even the notice that a dispute exists they can be said to be acting in good faith. It just seems like certain users are being purposefully antagonistic in removing these tags. nableezy - 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain a little about the underlying dispute? Is this similar to the other settlement articles, where the sticking point was the precise wording about the legality? PhilKnight (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV-lead tag was placed some months back because of that dispute. The factual accuracy and npov article tags were added by me a couple of days ago. Material from an English source published by a university press and by another source from the Israeli group Peace Now about this settlement being built on private Palestinian land was removed and replaced with a Hebrew source saying that Arab claims to the land are "false" (this is said in the narrative voice). I have requested that the original source be quoted and translations provided, per WP:NONENG, and have so far not had any luck in getting the user who added that source to comply. See diff, 2, 3. Also see the talk page for the repeated requests that quotes and translations be provided for the Hebrew source, a request that has so far been denied. nableezy - 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favour Nab and go misrepresent another editor, not me. While I'm not 100% behind removing the Peace Now thing, all you have to do is find another source to keep that questionable information inside. As for my source, you are simply not AGF on this. I haven't refused your request. If you are questioning the source you should take it to RS, not slap a tag on the whole article. --Shuki (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare Authorship mediation?

I wanted to check in. Will we be contacted any time soon? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smatprt, I'll find some time tomorrow. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Smatprt (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

Following this [5] editing restriction you put Nableezy under, he made two reverts to Israeli settler violence here [6] and here [7]. Would you like to take care of this or should I take it to AE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy, the first revert could be understood as an edit, so I'd prefer if you filed a report at WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I kind of expected you to decline, but calling a large scale change in an already existing paragraph an edit rather than a revert was a surprise. WP:REVERT: More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wasting your time, NMMNG. Nableezy is inserting material in direct disregard for WP:WORDS but the 1st revert is questionable and he has since used the talk page. He will walk again. AE will devolve into screams of partisanship and PK is obviously not interested in it here. Maybe this time will be the time he learns. He is getting a little better on the reverting. It took plenty of restrictions and blocks but I doubt he will blatantly breech the recent sanctions while they are in effect. Now if only he would abide by civility standards things might be great.Cptnono (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed to look at this

Hey, there has been a very long discussion here: [8], can you go through this entire discussion and see if there is consensus? Its important that you take a look at the arguments. I believe there is consensus for proposal two, and that the majority support it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SD, in my understanding this is more something for the coordinators of the Wikiproject to close than an admin. HG hasn't edited since the end of September, but Carol has edited in the last few days, so I'll drop a note on her talk. Also, there's a discussion on Nableezy's talk which could be relevant. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Carol? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Carolmooredc, the other coordination of the WP:IPCOLL wikiproject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't edited for a couple of days, so made a post at the admins noticeboard as well. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight/Archive76&oldid=396759239"