User talk:PhilKnight/Archive81

Shady Bard

Could you please let us know why Shady Bard was deleted? DougManagement (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DougManagement, the article was located at Shady bard and was deleted for not indicating the importance or significance of the group. Have a look at WP:BAND for guidance about Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for bands. My involvement was to delete Shady Bard, which was a redirect to the other page. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. The band have meet the following criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

They have been reviewed by The Sunday Times, Q, Uncut, Word, Music Week, Artrocker, Metro.

and

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Their music has appeared repeatedly on episodes of ABC's Emmy-award winning Grey's Anatomy, on Without A Trace and has soundtracked the MTV Switch global climate change awareness campaign.

Please can you reinstate the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougManagement (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DougManagement (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)DougManagement[reply]

Hi DougManagement, no I'm sorry, instead I suggest you make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. Please can you state the reason I should make a request to Wikipedia:Deletion review as it says on the page that I need to know the reason first. DougManagement (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)DougManagement[reply]

I'd suggest saying something along the lines of "Having looked at WP:BAND, I think they meet criteria 1 and 10" and then copy what you have posted about how they meet those criteria. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following your advice, this has been posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DougManagement (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)DougManagement[reply]

Mohannad

Requesting unprotection on the Mohannad page please, to make an article on the name, and list bearers of the name. John Cengiz talk 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've unprotected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Phil. John Cengiz talk 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix

Requesting ability to edit the Appendix page, there is hearsay and there isn't scientific proof, so it needs to be changed. Wikipedia is about facts, and I wish for it to stay that way.

SageKalzi (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)SageKalzi[reply]

You can make a request at Requests for page protection. Incidentally, I was mildly amused by this edit. PhilKnight (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Duval

Hi i was wondering to what purpose was "alex duval" deleted, it was put up for a specific purpose, and then five minutes later it was taken down. I would like to see this page put back up.

Have a look at WP:AUTHOR - does the subject meet the requirements? If so, then you could recreate the article, and include references which demonstrate this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what does this means ?

You write:

Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.' which is essentially similar.

Do you really think I am doing all this? If so, why? All I am trying to do is to write an article about Kendrick analysis. Kehrli (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all, no. But then again, I didn't say you were doing all of the above. However, the diffs in the evidence presented by Kkmurray indicate there are meaningful concerns with your conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Mathematical exposition: MHP decision

Dear Phil, Your suggestion that mathematical exposition be limited to arithmetic operations and the like is too severe. Mathematical articles are written for professionals, and even expository material is written mainly for college instructors with Ph.D.s.

For example, in the article on Shapley–Folkman lemma, I have glossed Ekeland's use of the closure operation, which is so obvious to specialists that Ekeland had no need to explain it. I provided a simple explanation in terms of sequential convergence, which makes the result available to readers with a background in calculus (I hope). No mathematician would characterize my gloss as OR. Yet, I am afraid that your proposed wording would ban such exposition (which is more complicated than arithmetic operations).

Because your language may influence other editing decisions, I would ask that you please consider asking for comment at the WikiProject Mathematics.

Finally, please consider loosening the restriction. I would suggest "Wikipedia editors may not conduct original research. It is appropriate for editors to insert appropriate background information in presenting research in secondary sources for a wider audience. Such expository writing should be limited to consensual explanations, rather than excuses to introduce original research."

I appreciate your work on this and other problems.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiefer Wolfowitz, thanks for your note. I think we agree that if a particular derivation has been published, then to gloss over the details, or for that matter to omit them completely, isn't original research. Looking again at the principle, I guess it should be rephrased. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful response, here and on the ArbCom (whenever I have checked). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the example on my talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE CU request

Hi, I am contacting you in your capacity as a currently active checkuser. At WP:AE#Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area, I am investigating revert patterns with respect to the editors and articles named there. The article histories include three anonymous reverts ([1], [2], [3]) that could have been made by some of these editors while logged out. Could you check whether that is the case? If it is, I would like to be able to take these reverts into account as part of the edit-wars under investigation, and making such reverts while logged out is problematic in and of itself. Thanks, Sandstein 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein, I've checkusered the 3 IPs, and haven't checkusered any of the logged-in editors. Results as follows:

144.132.72.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no logged in editors who have edited articles in relation to Eastern Europe.
79.164.31.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - unfortunately as checkuser results are only available for the last 3 months, no information is available.
65.43.96.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - no logged in editors who have edited articles in relation to Eastern Europe.

PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sandstein 23:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glkanter & The 'Cat' Quote

I see I left off the name of the editor I quoted, who posted the diff with the 'meow' stuff. It came from Rick Block. I have added that info to my page.

Sorry for the confusion. Glkanter (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glkanter, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little more explanation. I freely admit this was an inexcusable and highly intemperate comment (even mentioned it in the original filing of the arbitration case [4]). Glkanter has since reposted it numerous times [5] [6] [7] for what reason I'm not exactly sure, although it is consistent with his long standing pattern of low level harassment directed toward me with his accusations of ownership [8] and gamesmanship [9] and intellectual dishonesty [10] and ... (the examples are WAY too numerous to enumerate). I have with very, very rare exceptions simply ignored these (as noted by another user [11]). Should I have said what I did? Absolutely not. However, there's a considerable amount of context that looking at this one diff in isolation omits. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses, PhilKnight. So, a new 'editor attack' diff was substituted for the other 'editor attack' diff today.

And here it is, in it's entirety, the whole diff where I "attack" Rick Block by equating him to Jello in February, 2009:

"It's my thread. You employ a very effective technique for forestalling improvements to the article. Rather than engage in discussion, which I'm trying to do in a civil manner, you go off on long-winded tangents. You're like Jello. It's impossible to go point by point on any issues, large or small.

"Here's my original question: From nothing more than a logical standpoint, does it seem reasonable that since Monty sometimes gives us additional information about the whereabouts of the goat, that the contestant can improve his overall probability of winning the car from the previously unconditionally proven 2/3? Glkanter (talk)

For this, I'm facing a one year ban? While the WP:OWNERSHIP admin/editor gets off with less than a slap on the wrists? Glkanter (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited in areas subject to discretionary sanctions, so take my word for it: for your behavior in the past couple of days, a tough guy like Sandstein would have easily blocked you after an AE request. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why pick a fight with me now? You're obviously aware, as you've already commented on the MHP talk page, what's going to happen to my editing privileges. Glkanter (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate a direct acknowledgment

I hope this doesn't come across as pestering, but I would appreciate a direct acknowledgment that you saw my "further explanation" above [12]. And to elaborate on this slightly further, Glkanter has successfully pushed numerous editors to the point of exasperation. I could dredge up diffs to support this if you'd like, but the list of users includes (and keep in mind that Glkanter essentially solely edits the MHP talk page) user:C S, user:Nijdam, user:Glopk, me (clearly) and even generally supportive users like user:Dicklyon and user:Gill110951. And, again, I offer this not as excuse but as broader context. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick, yes I did. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing instances of image Firma costituzione italiana.jpg because "Deleted"

I sometimes have a look at Italian Constitution. I have seen that the link to the image no longer exists. Is that because the image itself was deleted in wikimedia commons? That image is not copyright protected and it's loaded in italian wikipedia... at http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firma_della_Costituzione.jpg . Is it possible to show the image again? Thank you - Bragliere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.128.33 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bragliere, the file was deleted for lacking a rationale, specifically there wasn't an explanation as to why this added significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rule explained in rationale is only for copyrighted pictures. That picture is not copyright protected anymore, as you can read in the italian version of the picture. Bragliere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.148.219 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining - I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I think it's interesting that you've counted me twice, and ignored Jclemens. As it happens, I frequently use this method when determining consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC):[reply]

RfAr/Noleander voting

Hi. In your voting on the Noleander case, you skipped over principle 6. If you have some reservation about it or didn't wish to vote on it, that's certainly up to you ... but I was just wondering if you might have missed it inadvertently, so I thought I'd mention it here. Thanks for all your input during the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't vote on the principle in either the workshop or the proposed decision page as I was somewhat unsure about the use of the term 'political correctness' which seems to mean different things to different people. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, per Brad, FoF 2, I see, Roger Davies ^talk 15:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know also. I made my initial votes prior to your copy edit. I don't have any reservations about the current version, which I've now supported. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shutterbug investigation

a quick FYI, I have reopened the NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbugsock investigation. The original claim was closed and you were one of the reviewing admins, but overturned later. It is being reopened because the user in question has shown new editing patterns since the original ban was overturned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffeepusher, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commercial logo rationale

Template:Commercial logo rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question

Hi PhilKnight, I would like to ask you about appeals rules that are applicable to the editors that were sanctioned at AE. I know that Arbcom has the right to specify in how many months after being sanctioned an editor might appeal the sanctions. Do AE administrators have similar rights? IMO it makes sense for ArbCom to do it because ArbCom is the highest court on wikipedia, but AE is not. If ArbCom sanctions an editor there's no where to appeal, but AE is different. My second question is: are these number of months that should pass before the right to appeal is applicable to any duration of the sanctions or only to indefinite ones? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbz1, an Arbitration Enforcement block can be appealed to the admin who applied the sanction, to WP:AE, and to ArbCom. If the admin who applied the sanctions indicates s/he won't hear an appeal for x months, that's fine. At the moment, we have a situation where, in practice, WP:AE is handled by about half a dozen admins, and if they collectively advise not to appeal to WP:AE for x months, that's probably worth listening to. However, I think the route to appeal to ArbCom is always there, and the admin applying the sanction doesn't have the right to prevent an appeal to ArbCom. Lastly, if the admin applying the sanction says don't appeal for x months, that still could be good advice. Regarding the second question, appeals to ArbCom are only for blocks / bans of an indefinite or 'lengthy' duration - the procedure is here, but doesn't specify a minimum. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:DVD rationale

Template:DVD rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Logo rationale

Template:Logo rationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:P

Crazymonkey1123 public has kittynapped your kitten! The kitten made them happy and they'd like to give you an enormously massive hug for inadvertently donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap a kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Haha! :P Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hello. I've got an unresolved dispute regarding a proposed overhaul of List of sovereign states that needs resolving. The parties involved recently concluded a lengthy Med Cab case that was closed with "no possibility of consensus". The mediator suggested that in order to gain one, we would require wider community input (please read mediator's comment). Where would you recommend to go for that? I think most of the involved would like to present their arguments on each issue, and then have uninvolved editors provide their own opinions.

The debate has been going for about a year now. I started drafting an arbitration request, but I don't know whether that will garner much of a response on the individual issues themselves. I think it's rather just an outlet for enforcing a consensus...? Is there a better alternative? Thanks in advance, Nightw 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to fill your talk page up with all of our bickering, but I simply want to suggest that the situation isn't quite how Night has presented it to you. While the mediation was unable to produce a unanimous consensus, 8 out of 10 editors in the mediation supported the proposal [13] and the mediator clearly stated that "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections". Since this time, a further three editors ([14], [15], [16]) have supported the proposal and none have opposed it. We've spent the last month+ trying to find a way to bring the 2 holdouts onside, but it has proven unsuccessful. The decision was recently made to implement the proposal as a first draft, as advised by the mediator, and to continue discussing how to improve the article since there is WP:NODEADLINE. Given the significant support for the proposal, I don't see why arbitration is needed. Nor has anyone aside from Night expressed any desire to take this to arbitration. Of course it's within their right to file a request, but the suggestion that "most of the involved would like to present their arguments on each issue, and then have uninvolved editors provide their own opinions" is false. Unfortunately, the situation has become a bit ugly with Night edit warring to keep their preferred version in place in spite of the consensus in favour of the proposal. Further comments by the mediator assessing the situation are available here. TDL (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your options are either formal mediation or a Request for Comment. The dispute is way too complicated for a third opinion, and ArbCom only handles conduct, not content. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It also seems there's a debate as to whether a consensus has been established. Would you take a look at the closing comments in the casefile that I linked above, and advise whether there is one? Sorry for the hassle... Nightw 18:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Never mind. Another admin's taken a look at it. Regards, Nightw 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Phil,I am awarding you with this barnstar because I have been impressed with the integrity and thoughtfulness you have demonstrated as a member of ArbCom. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mbz1, thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input on a proposed finding of fact

Hello. I am writing this message as a third party monitoring an ongoing arbitration case. I have been voicing concerns about a proposed finding of fact since 6 June, but no arbitrator has chosen to respond to those concerns. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket/Proposed_decision#Proposed_finding_9. I apologize for contacting you on your personal talk page, but despite posting notes daily on the proposed decision talk page requesting arbitrator input, no one has responded. Thank you. —Bill Price (nyb) 22:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

Hi Phil, could you please permanently delete this. I've deleted it from the user's tp but as far as I understand from the revdel dropdown only oversighters are allowed to remove it permanently. TYhanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, I've oversighted the edits. PhilKnight (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U: Cirt

Hi Phil, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --J N 466 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo Deletion

Hi Phil, could you consider reinstating the article Sean Berdy which was deleted last November. He is an American actor currently starring in the ABC Family drama Switched at Birth, and so should meet the qualifications for his own article (properly sourced, of course -- which I know was an issue last time). Thank you. Shaverc (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shaverc, the article was deleted as result of a discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Berdy - and so for the article to be restored, you need to file a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. PhilKnight (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]