Jump to content

User talk:PhilKnight/Archive82

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

Deletion review for Sean Berdy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sean Berdy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaverc (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester wikimeet

Hi Phil. It's a shame you couldn't make the Manchester wikimeet last month. The next one's going to be on 17 September, if you're interested in coming - more info at meta:Meetup/Manchester. Please sign up if you're coming, and also please sign up on the notification list if you want me to nag you about future Manchester meets. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for letting me know. Hopefully I'll be able to make the 17 September wikimeet. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping proposed decision

All editors' behavior should be looked and going by Elen of the Roads comment that due to family trouble she has been unable study this properly. Elen quote "I have the sense that there have been other people who have been problematic, but not the time to look at it deeper. It's unfortunate" Will you please come and comment here about this. Blackash have a chat 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

I am considering changing my ID from Jeepday to my given name. I don't really have anything to hide on a personal level, so I imagine it would only be technical challenges. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on topic?

Hi Jeepday, when I changed my username, I only changed my name on Wikipedia, on the other projects, Commons, Wiktionary and so on, I just created another account, and redirected the old one. I guess to make the change on other projects properly, you should contact a local crat. On a personal level, there was a small advantage in some cases where someone is slightly more polite because of editing under a real name. However this is balanced by perhaps more stress in some situations, where someone is angry and name calling - I think it's slightly easier to be detached when someone is saying 'Addhoc you're an idiot', because 'Addhoc' was only a username. Anyway, hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That helps thank you, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alliance Peru Bolivi 1873

How can you recommend a mediation if the issue comes from a mediation?: Please, take a look to Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 7#Mediation of defensive/offensive issue., Best regrads, --Keysanger (what?) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keysanger. Thanks for explaining, under the circumstances, I guess the next stage should be either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poster rationale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Poster rationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Poster rationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Album rationale

Template:Album 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) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Entebbe and 1RR / Reverts by CWenger

I've been working on cleaning up Operation Entebbe (an Isaeli military operation), and unfortunately another editor CWenger (who has a pro-Israel user box) keeps on adding false, ridiculous claims that the operation is somehow related to a US military operation. The article has a 1RR restriction due to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies, but CWenger has ignored this and made multiple reverts just now. Can you please take a look at this? Dimension31 (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimension31, sorry for not replying earlier. Infractions of the 1RR restriction should be reported to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. However, you should be aware that if you have gone over 1RR, you could also be sanctioned. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University rationale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:University rationale. Since you had some involvement with the Template:University rationale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Video rationale

Template:Video 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) 13:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping RfM

You may remember a recent Arbcom decision in which editors were requested to agree on an appropriate name for the article currently at Tree shaping. There has been a careful discussion on the subject, followed by an RfM which was hastily closed as 'No action' by involved administrator SilkTork. Was this what was envisaged by Arbcom? Perhaps you could take a look and give your opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Images and Media

Hello PhilKnight, I have prepared an drive yesterday to get the most images moved to the Wikimedia Commons. It is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011. It will start at 13 years ago or more precisely at 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC). There are some awards you may get. You may sign up now. We need lots of sysops too to delete the moved images (backlog may be made). ~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 17:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a party

Hi. Is it ok if I do that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've posted on the arbitration mailing list asking whether there any objections to adding him as a party. If there are no objections, I'll request that a clerk adds him. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFCCOM

Just to re-interate what I said in the abortion case I think its a bloody good idea. You should take it forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In all honesty, the essay was prompted by a comment made by Iridescent in the last ArbCom election, and heavily influenced by discussion on the ArbCom mailing list. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think as a first step towards this having somewhere to request RFC's to be formally closed as that makes ones that aren't ultra clear possible to move forward from, and secondly having somewhere high-profile to list controversial discussions would probably be good too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Seal rationale

Template:Seal 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. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content arbtration thoughts

Having seen your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop#Procedure_implemented, you might be interested in what I've been working on in my sandbox. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies (motion to close)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies

Hi - There appears to be a motion to close this case later today. In the case that you have not noticed - there are two new proposals predented by Newyorkbrad - 3.3.2.1 Cirt restricted from BLPs and 3.3.2.2 Cirt restricted from "political" biographies - that you have not voted in. Thank you for your attention to this. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Off2riorob, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, many thanks for the attention. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, PhilKnight. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.
Message added 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi PhilKnight, You have previously voted to decline the case against La goutte de pluie because of an open RfC/U against the user, including possible sanctions being discussed. I have presented a new diff in my section to show that it is highly unlikely the RfC will be successful (considering RfCs are non-binding), and would like to request that you revisit the situation. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strange Passerby, thanks for letting me know. I notice that Jimbo has posted in the discussion on Elle's user talk, and explained the situation. In my understanding the community can issue binding sanctions, that is, enforceable by blocks, and in this context, I consider there is a good chance that the community will be able to resolve this situation. There's some information about this process at Wikipedia:Community sanction. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am however, open to considering many other remedies proposed. I am simply not convinced that the editors involved are at all informed of the issues at hand before they called for some blanket prohibition. (Similarly, unlike how they advocated, an IP rangeblock against problematic IPs is untenable, because it would involve blocking half of Singapore.) Furthermore, unlike many other editors with much free time on their hands, I have not been going around different talk pages canvassing potential allies, so it is my impression that the sample of commenters on the RFC may be problematic. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I suggest you consider voluntarily following restrictions along the lines of those being discussed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, most of the commenters at the RFC are people who I have opposed in editing disputes -- they are really parties to the case. I really thought I had no real conflict with Zhanzhao and Strange Passerby, as I take it, I was only using the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a part of the project that is ill-watched. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Executive Director of Earthwave Society, a non-profit educational organization dedicated to conservation through information and education. I have made 3 attempts this evening, possibly 4, at adding an external link to Earthwave Society on the following Wiki pages:

Each time I added an external link, one of the volunteer editors deleted it for invalid reasons, including "link not necessary", or "promotional", or "spam", etc. The user names of the editors I can recall are Dream_Focus, Kuru, and Smarkflea. It appears they are all playing some kind of silly game on Wikipedia, and will absolutely not listen to reason. I have met all of Wiki's requirements for adding an external link, and can see no reason why I'm having to go through such nonsense. If you will please review our index page, and mission statement, you will see that Earthwave Society is a legitimate non-profit organization that often works in cooperation with both Federal & State Resource Agencies, including the US Fish & Wildlife Service. I personally chose the above listed Wiki sites because they focus on species we have covered extensively over the years. Earthwave Society actually pioneered the very first video documentation of alligator gar, paddlefish, and all seven North American species of sturgeon. Our conservation efforts have received international acclaim, and our programs have been utilized by the USF&WS for public awareness projects, and educational kiosks. Our video documentation has been distributed to public libraries, schools, and universities around the world, and it has been broadcast internationally at Wildlife Film Festivals, etc. A link to Earthwave Society certainly deserves a listing in Wikipedia on relevant sites. I will be extremely appreciative if you will look into this, and do whatever you feel is fair and necessary. Thanking you in advance....

Betty Wills username: Atsme Atsme (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the editors you've mentioned are acting entirely within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Secondly, the external links you keep adding are to videos which are for sale. In this context, I suggest you stop trying to add external links to your website. PhilKnight (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, PhilKnight - that site is NOT my website. I was simply being a contributor by adding an external link. Neither I nor Earthwave Society have anything to do with any of the sites at Wikipedia. We know better! Unfortunately, other users have added Earthwave Society's website as a reference, and others have added it as an external link. None of it was my doing. You guys would probably kick Einstein and Hawking to the curb. Atsme (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme[reply]
That is demonstrably untrue: you have added links to Earthwave Society's website. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. Your assessment is totally incorrect. BY LAW Earthwave Society is not allowed to be in the retail business selling videos for profit. If we did, our non-profit status would be revoked. We have Determination Letters from both the IRS, and our State Government that specifically qualify Earthwave Society as a NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION, so how can you say we are retailers selling videos? I have personally reviewed and updated the Earthwave Society web site to make sure there wasn't anything that could be misinterpreted as being FOR SALE, and there isn't. Earthwave Society has contributed a great deal of time, energy and resources in teaching conservation, and helping save endangered species. National Geographic News has listed Earthwave Society's website as an important reference, as have a number of Universities, including Berkley, Missouri Education, and the like. External links to Earthwave Society have been all over Wikipedia for quite some time, including sites in other languages, and there has never been a problem until now. Again, the documentation and resources available on the Earthwave Society website are not FOR SALE unless you also consider Wikipedia's solicitation for contributions as SELLING ACCESS which is a rather skewed interpretation in both instances. Our business is not "selling" videos anymore than it's Wiki's business to sell access disguised as contributions. We distribute educational information, some of which is available on DVD, but that's only a small part of what we do. The program content is a FREE resource, but if you can't view it at our office, and want your own personal copy, you have to pay the duplication fee, and shipping & handling charges. Show me where it says in the Wikipedia EXTERNAL LINK GUIDELINES that you are prohibited from adding an external link to a valuable resource unless the material is shipped free??? We also don't assess any exhibition fees for showing our programs to an audience. If we did, the cost would be $225 plus S&H, and the DVD would have to be returned after a specified amount of time. Earthwave Society has never asked for anything more than CONTRIBUTIONS the same way Wiki asks for CONTRIBUTIONS. At this point, I feel as though we're being discriminated against, so I am now forced to take this issue to someone higher up in the chain of command.
Atsme (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme[reply]
I agree with Kuru's assessment that adding links such as this are an attempt to promote a product. Specifically, this particular video costs $15.95. From my perspective, saying that you're adding links to videos, which are for sale, is essentially correct, however I recognize that you hold a different view. Regardless, the addition of these links is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so I confirm that my advice to discontinue adding external links to your website. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again - it is NOT my website. Question: if the resource materials at Earthwave Society's site were typewritten pages instead of on a DVD, would still feel the same? If a non-profit organization offers free viewing, and free resource materials, and all you have to do is pick them up, do you think that's acceptable? Do you truly believe a non-profit organization should eat the bill if someone asks for a duplicate copy of the resource materials to be shipped Fed Ex to their home in England? Sorry, but all I've heard so far is some extremely shallow thinking. Wiki is in serious trouble if that's the mindset today. You have completely overlooked the fact that the DVD is as much a RESOURCE as any publication, or manuscript, and offers 10 times more. The input I've heard so far sounds more like a You-Tube mentality. You have no clue what's involved in the documentation of a species life history cycle. Do you realize how big that manuscript would be? Multiply it by 7 species in the same genus. If you truly believe in conservation and the environment, you'd be weaning yourself off paper documentation. You really need to surf around on some of the other Wiki sites, and follow some of the links. I deleted 3 yesterday - one of which was blatant commercialism. People who are looking to Wiki as a viable resource will soon start looking elsewhere. Can't say that I'll blame them. Based on recent events, it certainly has lost its appeal for me.
The assertion that it isn't your website is splitting hairs. Otherwise, have a look at item 3 of Wikipedia:External links#What can normally be linked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Phil - I have reviewed the guidelines over and over again. I truly believe what you and all the other editors & Administrators need to do is review the following section from that same page...... Advertising and conflicts of interest Shortcuts: WP:ADV WP:EL#ADV Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link.

Earthwave Society falls within the proper guidelines. Period the end. All this rigamarole, and misinformed discourse over a few external links to a world renowned, highly praised EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION has been for naught. Perhaps its my innate desire to correct, and educate that kept me here trying to resolve this conflict. My years of experience tell me I'm right, and that there's been a grave misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Wiki's own policy. I do hope you all can get your heads together and resolve the issue. I will be forwarding all of this correspondence to the Arbitration Committee. I sincerely do thank you for the time you've devoted to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder of Saturday's wikimeet

Hi Phil, this is just a quick reminder about the Manchester wikimeet this Saturday (17th September). Hope you can still make it. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying communication problem

At Tenmei baned for one year, you explain that your reasoning is informed by an "underlying problem is difficulty with communication", but does this mean that I'm a "bad apple"?
Is it helpful to point to an "Edit count" pie chart here and "Articles created" list here.
As part of mentorship, I saved an inventory here which may be useful, especially the three bullets at the bottom.
Recent successes in dispute contexts informed my temerity in Senkaku-related issues. I used the same strategies, tactics and tools which were proven to be constructive in those venues, e.g.,
Is it appropriate for me to share this? Even if it does not alter your harsh judgment in this instance, perhaps it will influence your thinking in other cases which arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying problem is with your style of communication, and in the second link, I notice another editor expressed the opinion "Very lengthy, Tenmei (not easily inclined for me to read this "very long" argument)". In fact, in most of these links you seem to be using an unusual style of argument. Also, I'm unclear how any of these count as 'successes'; I wouldn't characterize the discussions linked as either especially successful or disastrous. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planning a well-cited page on The Warp

Hello, I was about to begin a page on Neil Oram and Ken Campbell's The Warp and discovered that you've previously deleted a page of that name. I've no idea what that page was like, but given two works published since deletion (Michael Coveney and Jeff Merryfield's books on Campbell), I should be able to produce a well-cited article... and I'm sure the play satisfies the Notability criterion, beyond its mention in The Guinness Book of Records. I'd be grateful if you could let me know the reasons for deletion, as it may well help me formulate a new page. Any help much appreciated. Ned-kogar (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ned-kogar, the page I deleted was a redirect to a unrelated page, so I'd suggest going ahead and creating the article. PhilKnight (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. Ned-kogar (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhilKnight/Archive82&oldid=1186663384"