User talk:PhilKnight/Archive87

Thank you

I'm new to Wikipedia and was shocked when someone with a vulgar name left a "turd" on my talk page. Thank you for the quick resolution. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudGamecock (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry. Keep forgetting the squiggles. ProudGamecock (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The new face of DRN: PhilKnight

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

PaulGS

Hello. I hate to bother you, but a Wikipedia user known as PaulGS repeatedly reverts my edits on the Time in Indiana article. All I did was correct some improper grammar that I found; however, PaulGS reverts it. “Different from” is proper grammar; “different than” is not. I feel that PaulGS is trying to start an edit war with me. As you are an admin, I felt I needed to talk to you. Please help.—BDE1982 (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi BDE1982, I've protected the article for a week to prevent the edit war continuing. PhilKnight (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good, sir. Thank you. Much appreciated.—BDE1982 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Protected my userpage

YOU PROTECTED MY USERPAGE!?!?!? Thanks alot, now I can't improve on my userpage!! Philroc (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Could I suggest you read Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy? I'll unprotect the page, if you agree not to include the personal information. PhilKnight (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least delete the part about the school I go to? Philroc (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I should explain your page has been protected from editing because of the potential dangers of providing too much personal information about yourself. In other words, providing too much personal information is a bad idea and is potentially dangerous. At the moment, I'm not convinced you understand this, so I think the protection should remain in place. However, if you can show that you understand, I'll remove the protection from the page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Agreed. Philroc (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the page protection, however, if you add the personal information again, I'll have to protect the page again. PhilKnight (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Financial Ombudsman Service article

Hello Phil

I hope you're well.

A little while ago I was in touch with you about making a few changes to our article. Because of the conflict of interests, I don't want to make the changes myself.

I've put together a document with the corrections and edits we'd like to make, but I don't seem to have the option of adding an attachement here, so I'll just copy and paste below if that okay.

We may still want to make a few edits to the triennial reviews section, as it's inaccurate and out-of-date. But I'll get back to you on that.

By the way, if it's easier to sort this out via email or over the phone just let me know.

Thanks a lot Shane

I’ve entered the corrected or updated version in bold.

- in the overview section, third paragraph…

Before the ombudsman can step in, the consumer must first give the business they are unhappy with the opportunity to look into the complaint itself - before the ombudsman service can make a decision on the dispute. The business has a maximum of eight weeks to resolve the complaint. If they do not resolve it within 8 weeks or the consumer is not happy with the response then they can refer the complaint to the ombudsman service.

Also, it may be better with fewer examples of the financial matters we cover – perhaps just the first nine or so (until loans and credit). Also, it would probably look better in bullet form?

- in the processes section, first paragraph…

… the law requires the ombudsman to take into account: relevant law and regulations; regulator’s rules …

- in the funding section…

The Financial Ombudsman Service is funded by the UK's financial services sector through a combination of statutory levies and case fees. These are paid by financial businesses that are regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) or licensed by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and are automatically covered by law by the ombudsman service.

- in the impartiality section, first paragraph…

The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes the proportion of complaints it upholds in favour of consumers ranging (in 2011/2012) between 2% and 99% DELETE depending on the financial product and business concerned. Across all complaints in 2013/2013 the ombudsman found 49% in favour of consumers. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html#a6c

…second paragraph

The ombudsman was set up by parliament as an impartial and independent body, though its decisions can be criticised by the side that loses.

The ombudsman was set up by parliament to be an impartial and independent body, though, as with the courts, its decisions can be subject to criticism.

- in the complaints handling performance of individual financial companies section…

[replace with]

Since September 2009 the ombudsman has been publishing complaints data on its website every six months about named individual businesses. The data shows the number of new complaints – and the proportion of complaints upheld in favour of consumers – for businesses that have 30 or more new cases (and 30 or more resolved cases) in each six-month period.

The complaints data shows that:

- Just under 200 businesses (out of more than 100,000 covered by the ombudsman service) together generate around 90% of the complaints workload.

- The number of complaints relating to each individual business ranges from 30 to over 45,000.

- The proportion of cases upheld in favour of the consumer varies substantially from business to business – between 3% and 100%.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html#a7

- in the budget and staffing levels section…

The entire ombudsman staff in 2007 (including substantial number of ancillary staff) was 960. They managed to handle 627,814 initial enquiries and close 111,673 cases which had been sent to for adjudication. Despite this incredible workload the BBC reported in September 2007 that the ombudsman planned to reduce staff numbers to 600, reflecting the decline in mortgage endowment complaints.[24] By December 2009 ombudsman staff had increased to over 1,000 - reflecting a substantially increased workload of 200,000 cases. In March 2012 the number of staff had increased to 2,000, to deal with a further doubling in the number of complaints - with up to 1,500 new cases each day just about payment protection insurance (PPI). DELETE Currently there are 3,500 people working at the ombudsman – reflecting a substantially increased workload of over half a million cases last year (2012/2013).

Staffing levels at the Financial Ombudsman Service fluctuate - as does the budget year-on-year - to match the volume of disputes it is dealing with. The number of staff required - and forecasts for complaints volumes and workload - are consulted on publicly each year in the ombudsman's corporate plan and budget.

- in the status of ombudsman decisions section…

Around 90% of the disputes that the Financial Ombudsman Service resolves are settled at earlier informal stages, without the intervention of an ombudsman. An ombudsman's decision is the final stage of the Financial Ombudsman Service's process. If the consumer with the complaint accepts a final decision, it is binding on both parties and enforceable in court. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/dealt.html

- in the accountability section, sixth paragraph…

The Independent Assessor is appointed by the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service. The current holder of the post is Linda Costelloe-Baker DELETE Amerdeep Somal [NEW] who has held several similar posts. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/IA-appointment-Apr2013.htm

The Independent Assessor reports formally to the board of the Financial Ombudsman Service - which publishes a report in full each year on the Financial Ombudsman Service's website.

- In the criticism section…

Timeliness - In the ten twelve years since the ombudsman service was created…

The ombudsman's most recently published annual review (2010/11) shows that half of complaints were sorted out in three months or less (47%) and three quarters (75%) in 6 months. DELETE The ombudsman’s most recent recently published annual review (2012/2013) shows that 58% of all disputes were sorted out within six months – and 43% of non-PPI cases within three months. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar13/index.html#a3

the fact that 35% of the Ombudsmen are solicitors DELETE

Though the ombudsman service currently upholds 49% of complaints in favour of the consumer, there have been complaints that the awards are inadequate.

Hi Shane, I've made most of the changes, however in a couple of instances, I haven't changed the text, as I prefer the existing wording. Also, I've rephrased some of the paragraphs. Hope this is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your inout requested

Phil, given your past involvement in the case of User:Factomancer, and specifically this comment - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFactomancer&diff=393217316&oldid=393147362

I would request your input here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Factomancer#13_September_2013 Sisoo vesimhu (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI for User Getnetabebe

Hi, I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Getnetabebe, since I'm pretty certain that Getnetabebe (talk · contribs) and Getuabebe (talk · contribs) are one and the same, but I'm really at a loss as to how to state the case. You were involved with this user earlier today: do you think that you could assist please? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, PhilKnight. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Phil. I am trying to edit the wikipedia page of Jeremy Piven and insert the following: 1998 - Jeremy Starred in the "God Made Velcro" Rock Music Video - Shock The Mind. I initially included a link to my youtube webpage and did not know the Wikipedia Rules. Three users have continued to remove my addition above which is truthful, creditable, factual, non copyright infringing, good taste, and honest.

The three users have accused me of violating copyrights, the vandalism code of wikipedia, editing war. More rhetoric in the reasons for not allowing just the sentence mentioned above. They for some reason are following the Piven entry as if they own it. My understanding is that wikipedia is open to authors, users, and people that can provide relative information on a subject, person place or thing.

I am ready to repeal their claim and need help.

Help out if you can and thanks.

Jeffry Sporleder- jeffrysporleder@yahoo.com Dr Shempenstein (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Roguehamster2073

FYI - Noticed you blocked this user. User is now off his/her block and seems to be inserting nonsense links throughout a series of articles (some breaking the syntax of info boxes) [1][2][3][4][5]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fountains of Bryn Mawr, thanks for letting me know, and this time I've blocked him indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers

Please watch this user. This user is causing some concerns. Please refer both of our talk pages. Thank You.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Financial Ombudsman Service - triennial reviews section update

Hello Phil

I hope you're well, and thanks a lot for tidying up our entry last time around.

I was hoping you may be able to help us with another update. We're undergoing another external review, and would like to pop the following up there in the triennial review section:

As of October 2013, the ombudsman's board has commissioned the service's fourth external review. The Future Foundation [link] – specialists in trend analysis – will conduct a review of the ombudsman's role in the changing world of financial services. The review will also encompass how changes in technology, consumer expectations and brand management will affect the ombudsman’s work.

LINK: http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/2303717/fos-starts-review-of-its-role-to-the-tune-of-gbp200k

Thanks again Shane

Hi Shane, I've added your text with some relatively minor changes. Hope this is ok. PhilKnight (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Rosenbaum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeff Rosenbaum. Since you had some involvement with the Jeff Rosenbaum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt

Hi, I saw you declined a speedy deletion that I requested. This article is written as if it were for a movie. However it is not. Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt is an urdu title. It means humiliation of Aamir Liaquat or... I am not able to give you the precise translation, but it's meaning is derogatory for Aamir Liaquat Hussain. This is essentially about a leaked video. The video itself is not notable and is certainly not titled Aamir Liaquat Kii Watt.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Muhammad, thanks for explaining. I've deleted the article as a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I was using the incorrect tag. Instead of tagging as an attack, I should have tagged it as "hoax" or as "obviously made up". My bad. Not much familiar with the various speedy deletion criteria. Take care.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Deleted page for Colin Riordan

A page for Prof. Colin Riordan was deleted 4/10/07 due to a query about notability. Prof Riordan is now the Vice-Chancellor of Cardiff University, a Russell Group University. I would like to create a page for Colin in line with the other VC's within the Russell Group. This would be a biography of Prof Riordan. I thought it would be best to contact you first as you had originally deleted the page. I work in the Web Team for Cardiff University, we understand that the page will be entirely factual.Jennijuniper (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jennijuniper, yes that's fine. I've left a note on your talk page about managing the conflict of interest. I'll restore the old article, so you can see if it has any useful content. PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Phil that's really helpful thank you. I'[ll read the guidelines carefully. Jennijuniper (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Medcombox

FYI. If you'd like to re-add the box, that's still possible: it's at {{Medcombox}}. Best, AGK [•] 22:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Should I update User:AGK/Guide for chairman? PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have time, then that would be great, thanks. I'm not the best person to update the guide: I tend to think something is obvious when it isn't, because I designed a lot of the system and templates. AGK [•] 12:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Far East and South Pacific Games

You deleted Far East and South Pacific Games as WP:CSD#G6 - Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup. I dont see how that applies. Was this done as part of a batch? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, in December 2008, the Asian Para Games article was deleted as a copyright violation by Moonriddengirl.[6] Following this, I deleted Far East and South Pacific Games which was a redirect. Anyway, considering the article has been recreated without the copyrighted material, I've restored the redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation: corrupt WSU official

I don't know the procedure for filing a request for mediation, maybe you can help me. The issue is that Crain's Detroit Business has reported on how Farshad Fotouhi, the corrupt new dean of the WSU College of Engineering, has caused a ton of problems for the whole university with his insatiable greed for status symbols like a bigger office, putting the people in the college in actual physical danger at one point. User:Shobeir just wants to uncritically regurgitate Fotouhi's bio from the university website, which of course doesn't mention Fotouhi's many blunders getting rid of good and/or necessary people. I first became aware of him when my daughter's friend, a graduate from WSU Engineering, started a letter-writing campaign to rehire Assistant Dean Gerald Thompkins, who, by the way, is black. But as I looked into it, I also found that Fotouhi had fired lots of white guys. One of them told my daughter's friend about the construction project to enlarge Fotouhi's office months before the actual work started. You can't quote some of this stuff, but just the true information gleaned from Crain's Detroit is enough to paint a truer picture of one very corrupt crony of the former provost (who's probably wrecking things at another university these days). Detroit Joseph (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You can file a request at WP:RFM. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

On a similar note, Phil, did you delete revisions here? John Reaves 19:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, following an OTRS request, I revision deleted some of the revisions which I though were potentially defamatory. PhilKnight (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Would link me to the ticket number? John Reaves 22:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course. [7] PhilKnight (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it in an oversight queue? I can't see it. -- John Reaves 04:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was oversight-en-wp. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Financial Ombudsman Service - out-of-date/broken links

Hi again Phil

I hope you’re well and happy new year.

I’ve been having a look at our article and am concerned a good few of the references are either dead links or a good bit out of date. These are mostly opinion pieces from newspapers – and don’t add much to the article anyway.

The following numbered links are either dead links or a good five or six years old (and therefore not of much value): 1, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64 and 70.

Would it be possible to remove these for us? Would you like me to suggest alternative links for some of them?

Thanks a lot Shane

Your revert of my legitimate revision on the "China-ASEAN Investment Cooperation Fund"

Dear PhilKnight,

Regarding your message at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:China-ASEAN_Fund&oldid=prev&diff=589936575, we would like to call upon your attention that the user name of "China-ASEAN Fund" represents the entity under this name. If it is not complying with the Wikipedia's policy, we could consider changing the username. For the last revision executed under this user name, the entity opening this user is exactly the copyright holder of the added copyrighted materials. May I know what you would need us to do under the Wikipedia policy to verify our copyright claim. Please kindly advice the next step for us to entitle our rightful right of edit (both add/delete materials) without further interruption from you.

Best Regards, China-ASEAN Investment Cooperation Fund

In regard to your username, yes, I would suggest changing the username. This can be requested at Wikipedia:Changing username. Otherwise, Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. Accordingly, verifying that you are the copyright holder would not resolve the issue. In this context, I suggest you do not add text that has been published elsewhere and is copyrighted. PhilKnight (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unsalted

Hello. Can you remove protection for the Nintendo Zone redirect? I'll be requesting DS Download Station to be moved to it soon. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to be mediator on an accepted RFM

Hello User:Phil Kinght

This is to request if you would be able to mediate on India Against Corruption which is accepted as an RFM as apparently there is a backlog, with hardly any active editors left on the Mediation Committee and such requests usually turn stale.

link to RFM [8]

All the parties to the dispute are agreeable to mediation.

Thanks (I am the filer) 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Engineering stub template

Greetings! All the articles in the category of 'engineering stub' are currently appearing as linked to File:Example.jpg. I notice you recently reverted an experimental edit containing example images in the engineering stub template; hence my request to you. I have attempted to make a null edit, purge, try to edit from a good historical version of the template. None work. My edits are not even appearing...The template does not seem to be protected from edits by editors, but since you are an admin, can you possibly tinker with the template once more and see if all the engineering stub articles can be dropped from Pages that link to "File:Example .jpg"? Thanks muchly. Fylbecatulous talk 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fylbecatulous, yes, at the current time, this report erroneously indicates that all the pages which contain the engineering stub template still contain File:Example.jpg. In the past other editors have made similar test edits, which when reverted didn't clear from the list of linked pages immediately. However, I am slightly surprised that it's taken this long, and perhaps making a dummy edit is worth trying. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hurray ツ . Thank you, they are now gone. Only two left, which are actual article victims. All the best! Fylbecatulous talk 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Eritrea

I saw you protected it as follows: "[Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expires 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)", did you mean "[Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 17:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite)"? I see no reasons why the page should be moved since April. I hope it was a mistake. Thanks for the answer. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tbhotch, yes, thanks for noticing my mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: User:TheMichiganGroup

I notice you were instrumental in redacting the "outing" efforts of this user. It looks for the moment like activity with that account has gone to a standstill. I wanted to get your opinion on whether some kind of block or other action would be appropriate in this case. We've got what looks like harassment/intimidation, group account use (name explicitly refers to group, posts use first-person plural), and unacceptable dissemination of personal information. But I noticed you didn't take any further action, and I didn't want to step over you if you felt that things should just rest where they are presently. - Vianello (Talk) 01:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vianello, to be honest, I was in two minds as to either block the account for outing / disruption, or just give the account a username block. Looking at the account now, I see that another admin has given a username block, which in my opinion is probably sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. Thanks! - Vianello (Talk) 00:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FfD closure confusion

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_27#Doge_.28meme.29 is a nom for two items. You closed it as "keep the first, delete the second" but your explanation of reasoning and actual deletion are the other way around. DMacks (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing FfD! DMacks (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

File:William Wedgwood Benn.jpg

Hi, I note that you have deleted this page prior to the conclusion if the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 February 17#File:William Wedgwood Benn.jpg This strikes me as a bit premature. Please could you re-instate the file. Graemp (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graemp, I think you're mistaken - the discussion had been open for more than 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, You know perfectly well that I was not mistaken - you deleted the file before the discussion had been closed. I see you have now closed the discussion - however, in closing the discussion you did not provide any summation that would support the deletion of the file. Therefore, please re-instate the file. Graemp (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Graemp, I deleted the file without closing the discussion, and a bot called AnomieBOT then closed the discussion. I'll add some reasoning to explain why the file was deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that you deleted the image prior to the conclusion of the deletion discussion. I'm not sure that in this instance, AnomieBOT has done us any favours by closing the discussion as your subsequently added reasoning reveals. I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to make a sufficiently informed determination based upon the limit of the argument that has taken place. When the nominator's brief case for deletion was countered, they made no further attempt to support their case. (It should be noted that the same nominator recently unsuccessfully nominated the entire article it was in to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aberdeen North by-election, 1928.) It would seem to me to be better to take the necessary action to encourage more comments on this deletion discussion, in order to have a more informed discussion in which a consensus may be reached. I therefore ask you again to re-instate the image and to also re-open this discussion. Graemp (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Graemp, deletion discussions generally run for 7 days, and as I have already said, the discussion had been open longer than 7 days. In my opinion, my deletion was correct, and in this context. I'm not going to restore the file. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv

You have deleted the above file citing persuading arguments regarding NFCC3, but do not seem to have taken into account the multiple arguments which showed NFCC3 did not apply. I find this an incorrect assessment of the situation, the pro-deletion side heavily abused a misinterpretation of NFCC3 and the file should not have been deleted under that circumstance. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi DWB, I think you're mistaken WP:NFCC#3 - that is minimal use - does apply in this instance. I'm not saying that a 30 second file should be deleted, but I was unconvinced by the arguments in favor of keeping a 40 seconds file. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Minimal use is relative, there is no given time limit to files as shown by the 60 second file that was up for deletion immediately below this one which was kept. So citing length is not an excuse, it is as long as is necessary to demonstrate what it needs to demonstrate and not a second longer. It had a full rationale for why it was important, and so NFCC 3 most certainly did not apply, the given opposition arguments demonstrated this time and time again, and that the reasoning given citing NFCC 3 was a clear abuse and/or misinterpretation of the wording of NFCC 3. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Darkwarriorblake. If the reason for deletion is length in seconds, could you explain what parts of the video do you consider that could be trimmed down, in order to achieve a shorter version of the video that would still suffice for the same encyclopedic purpose? Diego (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My role as closing admin was to try to discern some sort of consensus from the discussion. My comments weren't intended to stipulate how the video clip should be edited, but instead clarify that I'm not saying that all video clips contravene WP:NFCC#3. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But you have not clarified how this video clip contravenes WP:NFCC#3, and there were no consensus about that. Diego (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I found the arguments outlined by Stefan2, RJaguar3, TLSuda, Masem, Aspects, Jreferee, and LGA in regard to WP:NFCC#3 to be persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean, the notion that a video can be replaced by a screenshot or text? If so, then yes that would apply to every non-free video clip, so using them would be impossible by that criteria. You need to delineate a credible case where using non-free video would be acceptable according to NFCC#3, and show how this particular video didn't fit that standard, for your decision to be compliant with policy. Otherwise, that interpretation is a de-facto ban on non-free video in all cases, which is not compatible with the non-free usage policy. I also want you to address the arguments made by Favre1fan93, Betty Logan, Jhenderson777, Tenebrae Darkwarriorblake, Nettings and myself. I.e, I want you to make a review and assessment of the discussion and how all the arguments on each side were weighted to reach your conclussion, showing that they were not merely dismissed without thought; which is your job as the closing administrator. A discussion this long must not be dismissed with a mere "I feel like I'm aligned with this side better". Diego (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So, you won't provide clarification of your decision beyond "I found some unspecified arguments persuasive"? Diego (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now added some more detail to myy closing comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's still based on a complete misinterpretation of NFCC#3 Phil, their arguments solely relied on it violating NFCC#3 by not being a still image for no other reason than still image is more free than video, which is not true. Siding with them ignores every argument which proves it didn't, elaborating on why you believe them being wrong about the rule is right, doesn't make the outcome more so. Not that I'm picking on you Phil, but I'm not stupid, and NFCC#3 does not say what they say it does nor support what they say it does, there was no justification for the deletion of that video, and now its gone, and my HDD has died, the file is permanently lost under a case of pure abuse of Wikipedia policy. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)