User talk:PhilKnight/Archive90

ip 208.90.107.160

hi paul. we're in a computer class at a community college and we made a mistake and accidentally clicked on the edit link and did not intend to make any changes to the page you msg us about. reference -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:208.90.107.160&redirect=no

sorry for the trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.107.160 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calavo Growers Page

Dear Mr. Knight,

This is in regards to the Calavo Growers page that I edited. We are a group of students enrolled in a Communication class at our University, and we have been assigned the Calavo Growers page to edit. All of the information we are adding is confirmed off of the Calavo Growers own page. Please do not revert this back to the previous format for the next two weeks, as we are trying to preserve this content for our presentation. We really appreciate your cooperation, and thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Calavo Growers Project Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexi Chase (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't how this works. You can't just copy content from the Calavo Growers home page into the Wikipedia article. You should be adding content from reliable sources. Have a look at the links below:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

You should be using searches such as these to find reliably sourced content to add to the article. And even then, you should be adding content in your own words, which complies with Wikipedia's core policies, such as the Neutral Point of View. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News socks of banned sock-master

Hi Paul. Banned sock-master Tirgil34 (talk · contribs) who systematically has been vandalising the particular articles-(since 2012) is created new accounts after the last block. I noticed these accounts. Please check them per WP:DUCK:

and 89.204.../82.113...ip ranges belong to the same sock-master.

All of these accounts are edited the same articles with Tirgil34 and their additions are very similar to banned sock-master Tirgil's. And interestingly, although all these accounts are new, they edit/act like an experienced editor.

And this ip also likely used by Tirgil34. IP doesn't geolocate to Germany where Tirgil 's other ips geolocated but my suspicions are based on behavior. And also, I think this IP is from an ip-hider software and is using for socking purposes. 149.140.46.188 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon, I suggest you file a report at WP:SPI. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil, I have reported them but I cannot see my report on WP:SPI. 149.140.46.188 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I blanked the talk page of the case where you added your evidence. Since the case already exists, you may copy this content (except the edit semi protected template and note, of course) directly to the bottom of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Best —DoRD (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. 149.140.46.188 (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

No i have to admit i tried to do so on a purpose because i am having a poblem when others keep deleting my article and i do not undertand why... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumbo2009 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumbo2009

fair enough i do not intend any harm... but i just do not get it. how come some articles are just deleted within seconds, you cnat hardly know anything about it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumbo2009 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Homes

Hi there. My edit to the Smart Homes page was because the text there was an advertisement. I don't know how to nominate a page for deletion or to set up a redirect. If anything, Smart Home should redirect to Home Automation, which is a very good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.84.122 (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous editor to you made a number of unhelpful changes, which I've reverted. Also, I've added {{mergeto|Home Automation}} to the article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyandurg

Your revert was right at Kalyandurg as the user providing unsourced info and some sentences are already stated in the page.-> revert.--Vin09 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

youngStartup Ventures

Hi Mr. Knight,

I appreciate you reverting my corrections on the youngStartup Ventures page as didn't realize the article contained formatting errors. Can I please ask you to point me in the right direction as to how I can correct those errors.

Thanks, Joe Joe Benjamin (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent of your conflict of interest, you shouldn't be editing the article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Knight,

Perhaps you can help me with a challenge I'm having.

You see Mr. Knight, the article currently up there places my company in an artificially negative light and is actively doing damage to my business. I certainly understand and respect policies designed to keep biased parties from polluting Wikipedia, but surely the damaging of an individual's business runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia.

In the name of protecting an innocent individual's business, can I please ask you to either post the neutral facts about my business yourself and/or to allow me to post them?

Thank you in advance, Joe Benjamin Joe Benjamin (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post your concerns on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying. No sense in trying to get around the procedures, right. I've done that (posted on the talk page) and I'm sure everything will be rectified soon enough. Thank you so much for your help Mr. Knight.

Joe Joe Benjamin (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! I'm blocked :-P

What a joke!! You told that the block was for 48 hours.. But ists not 24 hour also.. and I am able editing. :-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.1.148 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Phil, I blocked the above IP for one week. I assumed it was block evasion, but at the time of the block I hadn't yet probed deeply enough to verify that. I then found the other IP you blocked for 48 hours, which is obviously the same person, 36.252.1.147 (talk · contribs · count). I increased "your" IP's block to one week from now so they matched, and I blocked talk page access for both of them. Somehow, I have a feeling we're not done, but I suppose one step at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23. Thanks for explaining, as well as blocking the IP. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect 2014–15 Liga I

I made a request to WP:RFPP since yesterday but there is no action so far... User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA also broke 3RR rule (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA_reported_by_User:Shocate_.28Result:_.29). Me and User:Eddie Nixon are having serious problems with him. Shocate (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Iaşi (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 09:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA

Any objections to page protection while you resolve this disagreement? PhilKnight (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikpedia

Sir, I am new to Wikipedia and after reading out the help article I am having some doubts about the process of contributing articles to Wikipedia. Is this the right place to seek help? Otherwise, please refer me to some admin who can help me. Thanks.Trailbust (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD CU blocked this account. I had started to spend some time trying to help get him a TeaHouse invite but didn't finish. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's the same as the other blocked, redlinked accounts who have edited here recently. —DoRD (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irish schools vandalism

I've blocked quite a few IP addresses such as 87.32.64.205 in the last 24 hours, all from HEAnet [1] - more than I've seen before in such a short time from one educational network. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Airlines

Phil, I was fixing a mistake. I actually worked for Freedom and we did NOT lease the CRJ-900's for 1 million dollars each. It was $1.00 per aircraft per month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BJFeldbauer (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BJFeldbauer, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014 - Admin Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thanks for making the unblock decision you made on Viriditas' talkpage. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LHM, you're too generous. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have given you a barnstar myself if you had discussed it with the blocking admin first. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess that would've been better. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is perfect. I can see your point of view and I think you acted well as an uninvolved admin. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unblock, PhilKnight. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward? I see by your user page that you have experience with mediation and dispute resolution. I have several concerns. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the page is now protected under the rationale of "Material removed under BLP should not be restored without prior consensus", the next stage should be a discussion on the talk page to clearly establish consensus. Also, it's possible there should be a discussion at WT:BLP about clarifying the WP:BLPSOURCES section. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you! And something.......

Hello Phil I'm Lockheed lover who created Roham Lemme tell you the story of roham... he was aborn in los angeles ( interview with a music channel ) he had 2 albums but he didn't got too famous i'm his fan and i know everything about him (officialy)... some guys camed and they removed roham i need your hel to get this article roham semi-protected ..Please.. and thanks for everything have a good day! oh you can also leave message on my talk page ;) Lockheed lover (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the edit history of Roham I now know why they created 'Roham ( Name )', which I have redirected back to the first page. FYI 220 of ^Borg 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil

Thanks for actually checking my IP address like admin's are supposed to do. --Mastermuttsir (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just so you know, the capacity to check an IP address is given to checkusers, so not all admins can view the underlying IP address. PhilKnight (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR and nor NPOV Ruthenians_in_Galicia

Hi,

I need some advice. I have had an issue with OR and or NPOV regarding editing the Galicia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Ruthenians_in_Galicia In short, two editors tag teamed me, refused to give sources before I posted the OR complaint and twist every source I cite around in a lot of double talk. It looks like a "cheat and retreat" strategy. I still think things are being cited improperly, embellished and twisted grotesquely, or inferences are being drawn from sources to support a particular nationalistic POV. I don't know what happens next on the OR board, or if I need to cross post a complaint with NPOV noticeboard. The behavior has been so bad that I think some other complaint should be made about these two, but as I am new here, I don't know how that process works. Any advice is appreciated. Thank you!85.154.245.171 (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, a third experienced editor agrees with the two "active" ones:[2]. This anon IP is trying to get around consensus by forum-shopping, and is most likely a sockpuppet.Faustian (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that Faustian engages in Wikihounding.85.154.245.171 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon, my suggestion is that you should focus on a particular sentence you want to include, and find several high quality sources that support this sentence. From there, you should start a new section on the talk page where you propose adding this sentence with sources. You should be willing to compromise on the wording, and work with other editors to overcome objections. If needs be, you can use dispute resolution if discussion on the talk page gets nowhere. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phil, The problem is a bit more serious. I have two editors who did not have sources for claiming a link between religion and ethnicity in Galicia. I had authority to the contrary, so I deleted it, but added commentary on the talk page with the sources. They said something was true without sources or discussion and demanded that I prove that it wasn't. No compromise is possible with these people. Things have now escalated to the OR page. I have also noticed a violation of the Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification, as these editors continue to refer to Carpo-Rusyns as Ukrainians. Since Carpo-Rusyns find it offensive to be labeled Ukrianians, I have left a warning on one editors talk page and on the Galicia talk page. Should I report this somewhere else? This guy doesn't care who he is offending with his behavior.85.154.245.171 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All statements the anon disapproves of have been sourced, and consensus exists. as noted, not by two editors but three. Issue is about Galicia, not about the lands of the Carpatho-Rusyns (anon is wrong there also but this is a tangent not worth arguing about here and now). IP is forum shopping to get his way despite consensus being against him on the article page, and failure in his attempt here:[3].Faustian (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third editor agreed with my usage of the term "Ruthenian" but thought it was too confusing for readers to need to understand how the term has had different meanings over the past 100 years or so. As usual, Faustian puts his own twist on everything. I should also ask if these are such "experienced editors" why didn't they follow the rules and source their assertions properly and engage in normal discussion without all of the double-talk and hostility?85.154.245.171 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third editor wrote "Faustian. The version you implemented looks very good. Thank you for it." Isn't that clear?Faustian (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't believe this IP is working alone. This appears to be a case of sock puppetry or, at the least, meatpuppetry. Please note the following:

I'm not certain as to whether this would qualify for a WP:SPI, but there's no doubt that they're connected. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a WP:SPI case would be worthwhile. The 85.154.245.171 and 37.200.224.205 addresses geolocate to Oman:

while the 2601:B:8F00:7B3:A124:148D:19AD:B1 gives a location of the United States:

https://www.ultratools.com/tools/ipv6InfoResult?ipAddress=2601:B:8F00:7B3:A124:148D:19AD:B1

PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the check, PhilKnight. I've bookmarked the tools for future reference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if three editors agree, they can't change the Wiki rules against OR and NPOV. From reading his talk page, please note that Faustian received a warning here for similar behavior as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=620155742#Faustian_and_COD_T_3 Also note that the constant accusations of puppetry are uncivil, and are yet another way to avoid addressing his nationalist POV, and failure to follow the rules of Wiki, or general academic standards of debate. They are also contrary to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPSOCK "Also, there is no prohibition on editing non-protected articles using an IP address. If one makes frequent good-faith edits without an account, and the result is a large number of IP addresses being attributed to his/her edits, no violation has occurred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sock_puppetry#IP_sock_puppetry Continuing to make such claims is harassment.85.154.245.172 (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Marisa

Hi Phil, I need guidance and hope you don't mind me seeking you out. The article Michael and Marisa is under discussion for deletion right now. This unfortunate situation started when I attempted to update some information in the article because I was unfamiliar with the exact way to site and update. Editing Wikipedia really is an art and I think the older one is, the more difficult it is to learn. (dig at myself with humor). When I found out the article was nominated for deletion, I was panicked by the prospect of now needing to post information and not knowing exactly how to post, sign etc., I googled looking for someone skilled at posting on wikipedia. Apparently, the "help" that comes up is not allowed by wikipedia, which I did not know. So, in my attempt to follow the rules, I then almost broke them. I didn't hire this person, I just emailed them to ask what to do and they responded suggesting I post reputable sources talking about the subject of the article. Further in the soup and unfamiliar with how to post, I attempted to provide information in support of the article staying such as links to artlices in reputable periodicals and on reputable sites. I made some posts containing links to for instance CNN, AOL, PBS, Billboard Magazine etc. Not surprisingly I didn't know how to sign posts and after looking up how to do it, I couldn't even find the little squiggle on my keyboard that I am supported to type four of. I am definitely a rule follower and all of my efforts are in good faith and with respect.

I think it is clear from the many links and explanations that I and others have posted that the article warrants staying, but my fear is that there are accusations of breaking all kinds of wikipedia protocols that make it look like we are attempting to do something that is not allowed. There is definitely no intention of doing that and all posts are intended to be above board and helpful. Would you take a look at the page and advise on how I can get out of the soup? I would love it if some experienced wikipedia users can look at the evidence for the article to stay and can comment and I don't know how to reach these people. I am just looking for people's honest impression of the page and am hoping that whatever accusations are on the page will be looked at as inexperience without any intentional misuse. Many thanks for all of your time. ≈≈≈≈Janet (found the squiggle below......finally....) My email is nedollco@aol.com. Phone <redacted>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.98.58 (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetence

Hi, this is regarding your denial of my request to block נהוראיי מבורך כחלון. I looked him up a little after his name appeared in the edit history of one of the articles on my watchlist. He is a 13 year old kid with less than poor command of English, and his talk page suggests several "friendly warnings" that were met with nothing but aggravation. Please advise when WP:COMPETENCE can be invoked, since I was under the impression that this would be a perfect example. Thanks. Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chunk5Darth, if we give vandals warnings before a block, then I think we should give him a warning. As it happens, looking at the global account information he has an account on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 15,000 edits, along with an account on the Simple English Wikipedia. Anyway, I've left him a warning, and if there are more problems, I'll block. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS

Thanks for taking me out from the IP Block. I am a regular contributor to wiki and mostly photographs. Bellus Delphina ^talk 20:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out editor requesting unbock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhilKnight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi PhilKnight, apologies that I did not know how Wikipedia works and it was an honest mistake to put a bio up. Can you please unblock me and delete the post Thank you 62.14.184.252 (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - please post your unblock request at your own account or IP's talk page not on the talk page of the blocking admin. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ISIS - New Reflinks

Thanks for getting rid of the bare URLs. I haven't used the rewritten Reflinks tool yet, but it looks as if it does not fill in all parameters. There are things missing in some of those you did like date of article, source and author possibly. Is there an option for the tool to fill those in, or does that have to be done manually afterwards? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P123ct1, the tool doesn't provide an option to fill those in, so it does have to be done manually. PhilKnight (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambishambi

Odd threat there, do you have any idea if that is just an idiot shooting off his mouth or if there is something else going on? It was all a bit odd anyway as this all happened last year. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is just an idiot making random threats. PhilKnight (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, just wondered if you knew anything more. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird echo message sort of 'from' you

"Your edit on [No page] has been reverted by PhilKnight. [No page]" Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by timtrent (talk • contribs)

Hi Timtrent, it was a biography of a cornhole player, that you tagged as a speedy, which I declined, but was subsequently deleted as non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the term to be the rather strange slang version and thus that it was an attack page. You learn something new every day. Now when I hear about cornholing I shall always assume a mildly amusing game of skill.

Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attack?

[4] Which user you were referring to? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably intended to revert the edit as a test, but somehow managed to select the wrong option. PhilKnight (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that nonsense anyway! :>

I need help with categorizing IP as sock. There is Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Siddheart. I don't know how to add IPs, can you add 101.56.210.127 to this category? I will see how you did it. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{IPsock|Siddheart}} to the user page which seems to have worked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: 121.97.139.179 block

Hi. I would like to ask if you can also block this user's rights to edit his talk page? After you denied his request for unblock, one of his sockpuppets (User:Raffy Tulfo) restored the anon's version of his talk page and removed your decision to unblock him. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WayKurat, no problem. PhilKnight (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the talk page history this morning, I changed/extended the block before noticing that you had already done so; for some reason your later block did not pop up when I refreshed the page. Just FYI. Kuru (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]