User talk:PhilKnight/Archive37

joining the ranks of the admins

== Not a problem ==--averagejoe (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. No, it is not a problem -- your AfD reasoning is smooth and cogent. Thank you for asking! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I thought you deserved this:

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New User

Hi PhilKnight,

I am a new user to posting on your site. I actually work for Fandango.com and noticed that the page that was created for us, Fandango (Ticket Service) had an outdated logo and information and we didn't like the title. We would prefer Fandango.com. Therefore, I went in to create a new page with updated information, but it was deleted. Can you help me update the information so that it is correct?

Thanks in advance, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyabaker (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, I've created a redirect from Fandango.com to the article. If you post details about what information needs updating to Talk:Fandango (ticket service), then other editors should make the necessary changes. Similarly, if you propose a page move, provided there is consensus, then another editor will move the article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phil. Would it be possible to also link the Fandango (Ticket Service) page from the Fandango Dance Page, Movie Pages, Movietickets.com, Moviefone. Also, I tried to create a Fandango Fun page but that was also deleted. Can you guys create that? Thanks. Jennyabaker (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engkanto

I did a major rewrite of this article (as promised) and would be interested if you have any comments on it's style etc. (rather than content) as I'm new to making major edits. Thanks in advance. Dpmuk (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puma Pac

(Oops, sorry I tried to put this in the wrong place.) Re your notability/AfD concerns, see the following: http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-48,GGLJ:en&um=1&tab=wn&q=Puma+Pac&scoring=d High interest in the presidential election and the size of the Clinton faction are reasons for keeping the page. Also note that this page needs edit-warring protection due to its political nature. Thanks for your new user welcome message but I will be a very very very part-time participant so no adoptive parents needed just yet.Ninasimonejr (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block Review

Hello! Would you be willing to review the block of NewCiaraFan09? The user was blocked for a personal attack on me. I am willing to overlook the attack, which was a pretty lame attempt at an attack, actually, and begin fresh with this user. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

charmed

why did u revert my edit the information i posted about the unaired pilot was correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.43.66 (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Gar

Hi there. I noticed you tagged the article I created as vandalism. I just wanted to stop in and let you know that it was not intended to be. The meme actually exists, and I was attempting to create an entry on it, but was going to use that as a temporary page. If you would like, I can link some other wiki-esque encyclopedia to you that have entries on this meme. Even then, on the main redirection page for 'Gar', there is a link to the now unused meme definition. Would you like to help me? --Tarage (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Etiquette in *?

Hello PhilKnight, I've come across a whole "series" of articles that I feel could qualify for deletion. This the Etiquette in <Continent> series, such as Etiquette in Europe (there is a list of links from the general Etiquette article - even Etiquette Worldwide).

However, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and before doing a blanket nomination of almost 10 pages I'd like some feedback from a more experienced editor.

The reason why I feel that this type of article should not be there, because:

Most of it is guidebook information, that would be better placed in Wikitravel
There are large lists of "facts" that are irrelevant, false, dubious or even plain useless
There is often no 'global' etiquette for a whole continent - and much of the articles are country-specific lists

If you take out the unencyclopaedic content, not much will remain. The remaining useful content would IMHO much better integrated into each country's 'culture' section or other specialised articles. That would completely eliminate the need for those pages.

Unfortunately, there's no real discussion on the articles itself. It seems that people just browse by, drop a "fact" from personal experience and move on. The only rationale to keep the article (in the case of Europe) was "it's interesting".

However, I'm quite sure that if they are put up for deletion, someone will complain...

Averell (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averell, I've redirected Etiquette Worldwide to Etiquette, however I'm not sure about the next move. I suspect that any deletion discussion would close with 'no consensus', or 'keep and clean-up'. I suggest you consider nominating what you consider to be the worst of the articles, and proceed from there. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Etiquette in Europe now. Even the original author really wants to keep the articles, so lets see if there's much discussion at all. If not, let's put up the others... Averell (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

There was a speed response to the request for protection, which is appreciated. It is cool to use your powers like this :) What is really strange is I remember seeing something at the top of the page saying 'semiprotected' or something, but then when I looked for it again I couldn't find it, was imagining it or just overlooking the disclaimer the second go round? Tyciol (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit War"

Decline reason: "You were blocked for engaging in a high speed revert war over a {{POV}} tag. In future, please be more careful to establish consensus on the talk page or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an revert war. — PhilKnight (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)"

First, in fact, this was not a POV tag. Such a tag remained untouched. This was a "facts are disputed" tag. No facts have actually been disputed in the weeks this tag has been here. I removed the tag twice to the talk page with a note. I sought a consensus, but the editor does not accept any contrary view, though expressed by several. I have done my utmost to seek resolution. I asked the admin that blocked me to intervene as well as others. I informed the person who blocked me, over a week ago, that I regarded these interventions as vandalism, since citations were being discarded and unreferenced, undiscussed and pejorative statements were being continually added, and that I was now was reverting without notice, but that editor, like the one he was defending, refused to comment or mediate. The other editor has previously engaged in edit war on this page with me and other editors. The editor cannot cite a disputed fact. There are either facts disputed or there are not. There are not.

Here's the issue: a constructive editor has to do a lot of work. There are in the first place not many people with the knowledge and the ability to provide a good article on any subject and they are doing it as a community service, gratis. A destructive editor can simply harrass - there's nothing to lose because he has done nothing. No knowledge is needed, no thought is needed, no effort is needed. All you have to do is team up with a few other single-issue activists and slow the development of wiki pages down, render them uninteresting and unintelligible by deleting pics, moving paragraphs, complicating sentences, entering abusive comments - by any means possible.

So far as I can see, there are only a few possible outcomes. Either admins take stock of who is doing the work and who is not, recognise and deal with the trouble when a contributing editor complains or let the editor deal with it in their own way - or else you will lose bona fide editors very quickly - I am not at the moment disposed to contribute further - and give areas like science and religion up to packs of ignorant activists. There's no level playing field between the skilled builder and the saboteur. Please think this over, pass it upstairs and show me you have done so. In my view you and the blocking admin owe me a whole lot of good advice. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm sorry that I mentioned the wrong tag. I'll try to write a longer response when I have time. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed facts were listed in edit summarizes and described on the page, your make believe consensus does not exist as there are multiple users on the talk page explaining to you why you are wrong. Stop playing the martyr and work on the talk page first before unilaterally altering a hotly contested article and there won't be a problem. Fact of the matter is we both broke the 3RR realize you broke a rule, take a deep breath and come discuss the article on the talk page, the article mind you not other users qualifications. I have proposed a new lead that takes into account most of the reverted edits over the past few weeks. If we can reach consensus on the lead we can talk about removing the tag. If you can do this with out denigrating your fellow editors as "ignorant activists" you might find things go a lot smoother. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to say that the history is there, the talk page is there and so there is no need for me to answer this. There is a need for those mediators involved to mention why they ignored my request for mediation perhaps, and perhaps there will be a need for the above user to explain, to anyone who cares to examine those pages, the above insult to common sense and common decency. Redheylin (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shrug* exactly, your actions are available for everyone to see and they merited a block. Drop the martyr act and move on, either contribute constructively or move on. Word of advise, if you have typed more than 100 words without saying anything of consequence you should erase it and start again. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell clearly took sides from the very beginning at Fringe Theories Noticeboard: "I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there" and he continued with his personal criticisms of Reich, which were not up for discussion. His actions were in support of disruptive editing of a page he personally did not like. This IS a complaint. Redheylin (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which outlines your options. PhilKnight (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering why you deleted a page...

Hey Phil, Corey from the band OPOPO here. I noticed that you deleted the OPOPO(EP) page. I am wondering why you did this. The page was not created by us. We have North American distribution. We have a ton of press online, We were also just ranked #8 on chartattack.com's electronic radio charts for all of Canada. What I'm trying to get at is I feel the page was a documentation of a legitimate Canadian cultural product. Can you throw me a bone? All the best.

Corey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.69.50 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corey, articles about albums are usually deleted after the main article about the band is deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for granting my request for rollback! Dillard421 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libel

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feedback #2

Hi. I wondered if you'd seen my message of 17th June, asking for feedback on my first MedCab case... --Dweller (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, sorry for not replying earlier. Your mediation of the Copa del Rey case was very competent. I had a quick look at the time you posted, and thought you had done a good job, but didn't get around to posting. Looking again, I think you handled the situation very well. Have you thought about taking another case? PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm just in the process of taking a case for MedCom. I feel I have a flair for mediation and want to work out where's the best place for my abilities. Hence the request for feedback - I'm looking to see what I'm good at. Ryan Postlethwaite's allocated me what looks like a pretty tough assignment. Dunno if I can handle it (if the parties agree to my mediation). If I fall on my backside, or dislike it, I'll be back to MedCab to help. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thank you very much PhilKnight :) I am assuming that you were referring to the Beit Jala reprisal raid article, which I hope to improve further. Unfortunately, it is difficult to work with so few sources, especially because I don't have full access to Benny Morris's books (only what Google Books gives). If you have the book Israel's Border Wars and could somehow let me look at pp. 214-215 (scan or digital camera maybe?), I'd be really greatful. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say

. . I'm a bit too old to be moved, but I am, deeply. It's the sort of thing that takes some of the tarnish off my prior record (a metaphor, I realize, that floats to mind from Japanese, 身から出た錆). Thank you, Phil. I'll treasure this. Finest Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts

It was as per the reference from the JPost article. The Jpost used it in much the same manner as I did, to put Morris' use of Massacre/over enthusiastic military assault into perspective. Morris puts it down as over enthusiastic military assault and I and the Jpost use the quote to show the level that Morris sets the bar. Under those conditions and as Morris is being used to refute the massacre theory, the peanuts quote is relevant....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right the first time

[1]. Thatcher 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me thinking I had bitten a genuine new user. Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Conway

Hi Phil, I am the mediator of the Lynn Conway dispute. Since you fully protected the page, I thought I would drop you and Dreadstar (the admin who initially protected the page) a note to let you know that the two editors in question recently reached an agreement to not edit the "controversy" section of this article and other related articles. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BrownHornet21, I've unprotected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Giovanni33

For some inexplicable reason, the discussion of the block of User:Giovanni33 is occurring in two places, on his Talk: page, and on AN/I. Since you have commented in one please, I thought you might want to comment in the other: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Giovanni33. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayjg, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Dispute Advice

Hi Phil, I was hoping to get your advice on a current editing dispute with the Kaplan, Inc. entry page [[2]]. Some concerns have been raised about the fact that I am a Kaplan staffer and removed information that I listed as unsourced and speculative. Would you mind taking a look at the history of the edits and give some advice on how this should be handled? Although I work for Kaplan, I have a great deal of respect for the Wiki community and want to be compliant with all content policies - which is why I created a discussion as soon as I removed the information, citing all reasons why I thought this was a reasonable course of action. The editor who reversed my changes didn't seem to find fault with my reasoning, only with the fact that I am a Kaplan employee. I only want to ensure that inaccurate information is not posted on the site. Any advice you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks much - krb2182 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi krb2182, I've left a note for JRStutler about not reintroducing unsourced content, and being civil. PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hello PhilKnight! How are you? Can you please close my RfA? I am withdrawing my nomination. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I believe that some of them were good faith oppose. It is clear that my RfA will not pass. I don't want to waste my time. In future, I will take care about the concerns raised by editors and apply again after sometime. I don't have any regrets. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masterpiece2000! Sorry to hear about the RfA. I've made a request on your behalf on the bureaucrats noticeboard, because I think crats usually close RfAs.--PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight, I've closed the above RfA. You may want to see the message I left on Masterpiece2000's RfA regarding the closure. Thanks. Acalamari 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Acalamari 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abusive deletionism

Hey, i just spent 10 days without being logged into wikipedia and see that in the meantime you deleted a page i spent many hours to create.

The deletion log says: "21:04, 23 June 2008 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "A Gate Through Bloodstained Mirrors" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: reason non-notable vanity album)"

I have to believe that you didn't reed farther than the first few lines of the article and then pressed "delete". Indeed that album was first released as a self-produced demo that wouldn't have met notability guideline. BUT it was reissued 3 times by official record labels in 3 countries, the latest reissue being on the notorious Hydra Head Recordings, a label that has heavyweights suc as Sunn O))) or Khanate under contract. I cannot see how it wouldn't meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Please have a look at the paragraph regarding albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. (...) Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." As the article clearly stated, the album has been officially released no less than three times. The article included coverage from professional websites such as Pitchfork. So can you please explain the reasoning that made you vandalize hours of my work? Irina666 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for restoring the article. Irina666 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed: Straight Out the Game

When deleting pages Unleashed: Straight Out the Game please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Unleashed, Straight Out the Game, thank you Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uchida

How does it violate policy? It's used as specified in the non-free explaination on the image description page - to illustrate its bibliographic information. 70.51.8.148 (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]