User talk:PhilKnight/Archive70

Template:No Candidate Deserves My Vote! Party (UK)/meta/shortname

Please could you reinstate this page it is part of a template for UK Political Party templates. please see Stevenage (UK Parliament constituency) for an example of what I mean. There was another page that is part of the same template set Template:No Candidate Deserves My Vote! Party (UK)/meta/color which was also deleted so now my party colour does not show and the party name is too long so it wraps round to a second line... or tell me why my template was different from any of the other political parties with similar template pages that did not get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewdev (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ewdev, I've restored the template. Sorry for the mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Douglas Madge

Thanks for removing the section from Geoffrey Douglas Madge: I wanted a second opinion on the possible copyvio and it seems you agreed.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 08:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Charley the Cat

Hi there, why did you delete my entry for Charley the Cat? You say it was deleted as an example of vandalism. This was an article in progress, and absolutely none of the information presented was in any way invalid, false, or harmful to the accumulated body of mankind's knowledge. I understand the citations need to be submitted for any information provided, however this being my first entry, I am still working on the formatting needed to embed citations. Please undo your delete of this entry, and if you will be patient, a more full article will take form, and will indeed possess the references which I believe you think I lack. Thank you for your consideration.

Penguinwrestler (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice you still haven't replied to my request. I'm not interested in being antagonistic, but your decision to remove my page seems a little arbitrary. Especially as a representative of an organisation which supposedly prides itself on being an encyclopedia created using the wealth of human knowledge and experience.

What is impartial about boycotting information which you do not possess? Did you do any fact checking before you deleted my entry, or did you just do it because you have the power to dictate what counts as vandalism versus information. Why don't you delete the article on pointy hats?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy_hats

That article seems like it's adding a lot to the library of human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguinwrestler (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. PhilKnight (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, quite the good read. I cannot begin to express my indignation at your self righteousness. Clearly you have all the power in the world to moderate the contents of the universally accepted information database known as wikipedia. My only comfort at being labelled a vandal, comes from the fact that there isn't a single academic institution on the planet which allows information from this website to be submitted as a viable resource. I would have liked to submit my information, and use it on your website, but you, the faceless basement dweller, have thwarted me. Clearly you are a shining light to all of your kind. You may not have real power, but so help you God you can sure moderate the bejesus out of this website.

Suck it.

99.254.110.121 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, I will endeavor to. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for dealing with the Soledad situation, Phil. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:212.219.248.235

Hi, i think the block for 212.219.248.235 is much too long. I think you can bloch the person for only 1 week, besides, the person can switch the IP adress. If not, please give me a reason on My Talk Page.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've just created the page The Little Lost Hen. I hope you enjoy improving and reading the page if you can. Thanks!--10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)DailyWikiHelp (talk)

Sole's Block

Phil, I think you ought reconsider Soledad's ban. While I'd agree he often POV pushed, I think the the Arbitration Request filed against him was done so because he wasn't pushing the "right" POV (i.e. SlimVirgin's POV). This debate is what led to SlimVirgin to file the request. If Sole hadn't been challenging Slim's wording here, I have no doubt that the request wouldn't have been filed. In other words, I think Slim's motivation here was to silence dissent on an article she feels she owns, rather than benefit wikipedia. Let me point to two quick points in Sole’s defence,

1) Looking through Sole’s offences SlimVirgin took so long to compile, I don’t think they could all really be called obviously inappropriate. For instance Slim pointed to this. Innappropriate? Maybe. But obvious POV pushing? Disruptive? And this? Frankly, I don’t even see how its POV pushing.

Indeed there were other edits Slim identified which were less forgivable. But I think the list Slim compiled looks a tad inflated.

2)Many of the editors who commented on ANI, clearly have it in for Sole because he is pushing the wrong POV. Modernist, Slim, Malik, and Mbz were all involved rather vehemently in a debate w/ Sole over the Al-Durrah article.

If you’re interested in doing due diligence I’d strongly suggest that you read the debate on the Al-Durrah talk page from this point to get some sense of the “faith” with which the editors involved in this debate have been proceeding. Keep in mind, that while conducting this debate SlimV first sought to arbitrate against both Slim and I with allegations of sock puppetry before launching this most recent AE.

Anyway, in conclusion, I’m not contending that Sole hasn’t made some POV pushing, somewhat disruptive edits. I would contend though, that had he been pushing the same POV that some his opponents here are, there would likely not have been an issue. Given that, this block appears to be more of a “POV hit” rather than a purely legitamate block against a troublesome editor.

As always, I approach in good faith, and am willing to be proven wrong. Thanks for your time. NickCT (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, the discussion on ANI was open for just over 24 hours, and even if you disregard the involved editors you mention, in my humble opinion, there was a clear consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your opinion need be humble, or in fact an opinion at all. There was certainly consensus. But I question the validity of the consensus b/c 1) Most of the "unattached" editors were biased by the comments of the "involved" editors and by SlimV's lengthy list of offenses, which I think if you critique 1 by 1 looks a little shakey and inflated & 2) Because, as you mentioned, the debate was opened for just 24 hrs. Does this constitute a reasonable period in which Sole could have offered his defense?

I worry that the message from this block is that if you can make someone who opposes your POV look bad by scowering their contribs and finding edits which at face value appear to be POV pushing (especially POVs which might be construed as unsavory by a majority of English Wiki editors) you can get them blocked indefinately.

Regardless, thanks for your time and attention. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Kochari

I tried to explain my reverts. Interwiki scheme:

en:Kochari -> ru:Кочари - ru:Кочари (азербайджанский танец) -> az:Köçəri

en:Kochari -> az:Köçəri -> ru:Кочари

--hayk (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashurbanipal.JPG

Hi PhilKnight, I was referred back to you after I've found that the deleted photo is actually of a publicly-owned art, as detailed here. This information was not known to me (and to the other editors) during the deletion discussion, so I would appreciate if you could consider re-opening the discussion, and I would also be happy to know your opinion in this matter. Thanks John Hyams (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi John Hyams, the link says the sculpture is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. However, owned by a Government organization, and in the public domain aren't necessarily the same thing. Or am I missing something? PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It says among other things: "The Arts Commission of San Francisco, San Francisco Civic Art Collection: A Guided Tour to Publicly Owned Art of the City and County of San Francisco,".

http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=G1I98048Q3397.39158&menu=search&aspect=Keyword&npp=50&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=ariall&ri=&term=&index=.GW&aspect=Keyword&term=&index=.AW&term=&index=.TW&term=&index=.SW&term=&index=.FW&term=&index=.OW&term=CA000062&index=.NW&x=9&y=10#focus

Also, if it's owned by the city and not by the artist, isn't it like NASA material which is regarded as public domain? John Hyams (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This was archived without answer... John Hyams (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In the US, images owned by the federal government are public domain, however that isn't always the case for other levels of government. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're sure the city of SF does not fall in the public domain category? Is there a legal reference that we can use? John Hyams (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi John, no, to be perfectly honest I'm not sure. However, I'd prefer to be confident the image definitely wasn't a copyright infringement before restoring it, especially considering there are 3 reasonable quality images currently being used in the Ashurbanipal article. If you want to pursue this matter further, I suggest you make a request at deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Striking comments from banned editors?

Hey Phil, SlimVirgin and others continousily strike out (1,2,3,4)Soledad's comments in a survey. Given that the struck comments are not at face value either inflammatory,personal attacks or vanadalism my reading of Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments would suggest this editting is disruptive. The editors striking the comments (which conincidently argue against thier position) claim it's appropriate as Sole has been banned. As you banned Sole, could weigh in on the appropriateness of this practice before this ends in another arbitration request? NickCT (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I'd suggest a compromise of placing a note after Soledad's 'vote' indicating that he's been banned. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate to me. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Enacted NickCT (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. There cannot be policies written for each and every situation. Sometimes one should use common sense. The user was blocked because of antisemitic edits, POV pushing, the Holocaust denial edits and so on. With such a record the user vote for the article, which directly connected to Jews cannot and should not be taken into account. It is just as simple as that.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Phil, I'd appreciate it if you took care of the above comment. Note - This is the kind of editor that suggested Sole be blocked..... NickCT (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, I believe Phil would really appreciate, if you are to leave him alone. About contest of my above comment, let me please quote SlimVirgin for you, when she talks about Soledad22 so called contributions: "Many of his edits are suggestive of fascist, antisemitic, or racist interests", and I cannot agree with her more. PhilKnight , please forgive me for entering the discussion at your talk page. It is not the right place for such discussions. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings PhilKnight - I've just seen that you've had to delete yet another of my speedy delete templates. Thanks - and sorry you were troubled. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't Bomb Me about Proposed Deletion without a proper link!

Don't Bomb Me about Proposed Deletion without a proper link!

You say the Clifford Geary article is being proposed for deletion and there is no note on the article page with any valid link to any discussion, there is no discussion in AfD, there is no link on the article talk page, and your stupid notice on my talk page has no valid link! What heck are you on about?!

The whole deletion process for this article (if you want it deleted) has been botched!

Straighten it out and don't waste my time. I'm interested in the article but not in bogus AfDs. Hu (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You also botched the porposed deletion of Jules Ekona Jatta

You also botched the proposed deletion of Jules Ekona Jatta Hu (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hu, I think it's entirely possible you're confusing Articles for Deletion and Proposed Deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Muhammad Tulaimat

I have contested the above PROD. Google searches using the Arabic transliteration "محمد طليمات" yeilded 5 book hits, a couple of news hits and 76 Web hits. Bear in mind that Arabic RSs are more likely to be found in Google Web Search than Google News, then I'm sure that with the help of a suitable Wiki Project, sources could be found. I don't read Arabic, unfortunately, so I can't look into it more (unless I use Google Translate a lot, and then it may not be totally reliable!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thank you so much for deleting a work in progress by one of my students

It is very helpful when these articles are deleted with minimal notification. This makes encouraging our students so much more fruitful, when they know that their posts will be dramatically and promptly dealt with. I'm sure it will be easier for me to encourage others to contribute, based on this wonderful experience. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

thanx for moving it now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen (House)

Refering to your edit on 22nd Feb [1] don't people usually use the image of the character on the show (such as promotional images or a screencap) instead of photographs of the actress? Just some needed clarification so that if anything, I would replace the current image with a promotional picture. Thanks. --Hanaichi 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hanaichi, item 1 of the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy is:

"Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

Replacing a free image with a similar non-free version would therefore not be allowed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So therefore, if a free image of the actor is available, we should use it instead of the character they portray in the media? Because if that's the case, we'll have to replace every single character image with the free image of the actor portaying the character, as obviously character images are owned by the copyright people (tv stations which air the shows) and images of actors can be "free" so to speak. I really don't see how one can interchange the character and actor image as they are not "similar". --Hanaichi 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. In this image her appearance, including hair, make up and so on are, as far as I can tell, similar to the character's. Also, I'm obviously not saying that for a character such as Darth Vader can be replaced with an image of the actor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actors are actors, using their images to replace their character images stikes me as odd. So basically you are suggesting that all real life people whose photographs bear resembelance to their character should be used instead of character images? --Hanaichi 23:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, if it serves the same encyclopedic purpose. PhilKnight (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan Brough

Thanks for putting the reference back in, sorry I accidently removed it! As you saw, I found a couple of other references which I used, and inadvertently removed the one which you had added during the 1/2 hour which I had spent looking for them! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow protection

This appears to have been semi-protected indefinitely for editing and for 7 days for moving was that a mistake? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Hey. I need your help with something. There has been an arbitration case over the Asmahan article, I am now not allowed to change the ethnicity or nationality of a person, but I am allowed to propose changes at a talkpage.

An arb explained this situation pretty good: [2] I have now talked with the drafter of the arbitration case, User talk:Wizardman, he has told me that a third part is needed and that I am allowed to invite a neutral editor to take a look at points of corrections I have presented at the talkpage.

The article is in desperate need of neutral editors. I have asked several people to get involved but no one wants to. I have pointed out 7 points of correction at the talkpage: [3]

I would like you to take a look at them and see if changes to the article are needed.

Do you think you can get involved in this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant article

Hi there. Could you please delete this redirect page? The page is redundant and not required. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. Amsaim (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Watton

You prodded this article, but I've declined the prod (unwillingly) because it was kept at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ben Watton. Please feel free to take it to AFD; it doesn't seem worthy of keeping. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

phil...

get a life mate...you seem very bored. i will find you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carasacc (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carasacc, I'm never that sure how to respond in these situations - short of saying nothing, the best response I've seen was Moot's "uh okay. I am going to make soup now". But anyway, given your wrath was caused by me deleting an article about a British rock/pop band I'm guessing you're a fan of Placebo, and like the song Infra-red? PhilKnight (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Thank you for stepping in. It's worth pointing out that the IP who interposed himself in the AIV discussion geolocates to New Jersey, which is one of the ISP's apparently used by the banned user Pioneercourthouse. The MO also fits PCH - interposing in a discussion to which he is not a party, trying to fan the flames. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs, glad to help. Thanks for the info about Pioneercourthouse. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not worth blocking that other IP, though, as he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice.

So, let me get this straight, you deleted 1080brickellavenue.jpg and 1 bayfront plaza.jpg becuase of lack of explanation of why it can't be replaced, yet you don't give a chance for me to explain? Great job. (S.S. Miami (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC))

If you can explain why they aren't replaceable, I'll undelete them. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because...

N5iln has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

User 66.159.181.74

Hello Phil, thought I'd tell you that I think that 66.159.181.74 tried to make a cheapish shot at an anti-Semitic jokelet on the Antisemitism talkpage just before you gave him a 72 hour block (not really the approved way to behave in the WP:ARBPIA area). I've deleted it. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

findsources

I've mentioned your template at my talk page, as a good example, at [4] DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I created {{findsources}} with AfD in mind, so I'm pleased it's been added to {{Afd2}}. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of 130.95.128.51

I did request an unblock because I couldn't edit there, however I have also heard unofficially that the proxy was no longer open, and so was requesting the IP block be lifted. I personally don't need an unblock since I'm not forced to use the proxy, it's just a pain to switch between using it and not when editing Wikipedia. Thanks. TRS-80 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)