User talk:PhilKnight/Archive58

I noticed from Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_April_6#Worms_World_Party_screenshot.png that you deleted the Image:Worms World Party screenshot.png. I was wondering about it since I tried my best to address the issues pointed out by the two fellow users who voted "delete". Their main concern was that the gameplay wasn't discussed in the Worms World Party article, but I added some discussion about that. Also, I think they might not have even noticed that the image was used in Worms (series) too, where the gameplay really is discussed at length. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZeroOne, I've re-opened the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I see you voted for delete, but that's fair enough. Just please see the Worms World Party article again, I have now expanded the Gameplay section even more. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to be sure I understand what just went on, you notified me that there's very low tolerance for disruptive editing in IP topics, and that if I do something wrong, I'll be warned once and then start getting all kinds of sanctions? And everyone who edits IP pages gets this same notification? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy, yes, that's correct. PhilKnight (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how my name poped up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Al-Fakhura school incident is on my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I have to mention that a lot of people who edit that page are not on the notification list, but that's as far as I'm going with that. Thanks for the replies and I'll try to work within the rules. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I got that from the Rochester Wiki, where all images are Creative Commons; what was the source? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I've restored the image. The source given is a photobucket site, and there isn't a license tag. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, in regards to File:Dmitry Gennadiyevich Medvedev.jpg, I have gotten caught up with another article, and it is taking longer than expected to finish, so I haven't worked on the article in which this photo was going to be used, so feel free to go ahead and delete it now if you wish, and when I have almost finished the other article, I will upload it again. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russavia, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, I'm curious about your reasons for blocking The Original Wilbear. Tom Harrison's warning was not very specific and was not logged. In fact, it only became a "warning" after TOWB asked Tom whether it should be taken as such. TOWB, in any case, seems to have made half a dozen edits to 9/11 articles and about 15 talk page edits. The disruption is very difficult to see. Before I appeal it on TOWB's behalf to ARBCOM, I thought I'd get your thoughts on it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas, I blocked The Original Wildbear following this discussion. The problem was that he was using the talk page to advocate for the controlled demolition theory, instead of discussing ways to improve the article. It was this post which convinced me that some form of sanction was justifiable, because it contradicted Wikipedia:ARB9/11#Purpose of Wikipedia, specifically, original research. That said, maybe a month for a first block was a little steep. I'll reduce the block to a week. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. BTW, Doesn't it seem to you that pretty much everyone in this discussion could be accused of advocating (whether for or against controlled demolition) instead of talking about how to improve the article? Why single out Wild Bear?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't watchlisted the 9/11 articles, however WP:AE is on my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mention that discussion because it was the one Jehochman originally linked to as an example of Wildbear's disruption. I've never heard of anyone getting blocked simply for expressing a POV or introducing a bit of original research on the talk page. I don't see how the discretionary sanctions support such an action. After being warned, it seems, Wildbear made exactly zero edits to articles covered by the 9/11 arbitration. I don't see what else he was supposed to do, except perhaps shut up and go away. Some editors certainly seem to be interpreting the ruling in that way, i.e., as a rule against any hint of "truther propaganda".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stuffed up the original tagging of the image. I've now changed it what it was supposed to be. Sorry about thatNimChief (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I know which point of the non-free policy did that image violate? I have used it in the proper article and the description was half-copied from another image available here on the English Wikipedia, so it should be all right. Cheers, Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomasz, the first item; non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In this case, the subject of the photograph is a living person, consequently a free alternative could be created. PhilKnight (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Thanks for pointing this out that clearly, I wasn't aware of that. Have a nice day :) Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just found this and feel that it has sufficient notability to remain. Agree there are issues with the article (unref) but definitely existed and was definitely wrecked on date given. A search on Miramar for Cap Lopez confirms the date of sinking (enter Cap Lopez in search box, click on the 1885 built vessel). I'm going to raise this at WT:SHIPS and hopefully we can rescue the article. I hope you don't mind but I'm going to remove the PROD tag. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots, thanks for adding sources. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Off2riorob seems to be having an autoblock problem. Could you look into it please? Durova^Charge! 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and your swift attention. :) Durova^Charge! 00:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's about that image you deleted today, the File:Exosquad Game Title.png... You see, I'm pretty sure I added a FU rationale template to its description soon after it was tagged, but since it's deleted, I cannot check. Was there really no FUR on its page? --Koveras ^☭ 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koveras, I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was fast. ^^ --Koveras ^☭ 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Phil, your input at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#When_do_warnings_become_stale? would be appreciated. Regards, Skomorokh 11:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skomorokh, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you nominated the original AfD, you might be interested in this. Black Kite 19:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Black Kite, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight. I came across your name through the editor's assistance page. I need help in finding if a source is reliable. There is a disagreement between me and another editor on using a particular source. In the reliable sources notice board there was no response other than the discussion between the involved editors. That's why I am hoping you can help.

Article: Sathya Sai Baba - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba.

This article has been under 2 arbitrations and great emphasis was laid on using reliable sources for the article during the second arbitration.

Source In Question: Dale Beyerstein's unpublished ebook: http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/papers/saibaba

Question: Is this ebook a reliable source for the article?

Reliable Source NoticeBoard Discussion Link: ::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_31#Dale_Beyerstein_and_Basava_Premananda

Concerns about this ebook:

• This ebook was never published nor its fact checked or verified by any reputed third party publisher / publication.
• This ebook contains original research and personal views of Beyerstein and is solely written by a single person and its not like a journal handled by several staff.
• This ebook was never peer reviewed.
• The viewership: There is no record of viewership. Its not linked to any known reputed websites.

There are several such unverified ebooks available in the internet. I am concerned that this source may not be a reliable source for this article. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Radiantenergy, I suggest you try the Reliable sources noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have requested for checking the source here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_for_help_in_determining_if_this_source_is_reliable. I do hope I get some answers. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JamesBurns: Socking ...and_more, because of these CheckUser results it has come to light that there has been some sockpuppetry at AFD in several discussions. I'm helping with the task of revisiting all of the AFD discussions listed here. Please review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room Service Tour in light of the new evidence. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uncle G, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed content better placed on more appropriate page.] CarolMooreDC (talk)

Carol, I think the proper place for these complaints is WP:AE. If I were the one being accused I would be very upset if a user went to a specific admin instead of following the procedure. Phil obviously can choose to take a look at the complaint, but he can also do that if you post it to the arbitration enforcement page. Nableezy (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought you just stayed with the same admin. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol, I agree with Nableezy about posting this on WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems she didn't think WP:AE was a more appropriate page. Drsmoo (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm giving you a break in hopes you'll improve your behavior :-) It won't take much to rewrite that complaint to the appropriate forum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful Drsmoo (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you have deleted this. The image was PD-ineligible, so it was free. Compare this. Mamurra (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mamurra, I deleted the image because it was also tagged {{Non-free software screenshot}}, and didn't have a non-free use rationale. However, I agree that it probably should be regarded as ineligible for copyright, so I've restored the image. PhilKnight (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as a member of the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, I was wondering are you and your fellow moderators going to be making a statement on the future actions as a result of the statement process? There are many editors waiting and are a bit confused by the lack of action and lack of decision making. A statement of any future action would be greatly appreciated. Regards MITH 15:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted at that case that you left off your name when adding notification of NootherIDAvailable to the log. If this was intentional, or you would prefer it otherwise, please accept my apologies and correct it. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eldereft, thanks for informing me. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Seemed like a straight-up obscene name situation to my eye, but I trust your judgment. If you see otherwise, no problem with that! - Vianello (Talk) 22:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm concerned about the mediation of a Barney Frank dispute, so I'd appreciate your comments.
If this isn't the right way to go about meta-mediation, please let me know - thanks. (CCed to both Cabal coordinators) —EqualRights (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EqualRights, thanks for letting me know. I've added the page to my watchlist, and I'll try to help out. PhilKnight (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is appreciated. This is my first time. I wasn't expecting personal attacks! But yeah, any help is appreciated. Joshua Ingram 16:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuaingram, you are likely well meaning but this may not be the best match for you. You have very few edits and almost all of them in article space concern what would loosely be labelled religious and perhaps conservative. That alone is not a problem nor is your userpage confirming your POV. We all have them. But on Barney Frank we have two editors who have edit-warred for a month resulting in the article being fully-protected three times who arguably share a similar conservative Christian veiwpoint trying to replace positive information on the most visible LGBT politician while replacing that with POV content. Out of a massive ANI report on ChildofMidnight that descended into a IMHO, three-ring circus, they cherry-picked a comment that missed the point of the thread (edit-warring) to support their position and you added "Amen!" ? This is not how any mediation I've seen would progress and I'm afraid I still see this as Soxwon disrupting the article - yet again - by filling a mediation. Hopefully this will go smoother but they're headed for pagebans. The energy wasted on their campaign is unacceptable; they have simply dug in while myself and other editors have tried to be patient presenting more and more reliable sources. And when this round is over? What's their next "fix"? Really I appreciate what you tried to do but this is beyond the pale. -- Banjeboi 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first attempts at mediation were far from perfect, but after several attempts I reached a level that is, well, passable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Yes we all came with needs, my points are that (i) at least one of these users, ChildofMidnight, presents themselves quite innocently when pulled in front of admin boards where they seem quite active, but that belies their actions; (ii) mediators can have POV and issues galore but need to park that at the door to allow the process to unfold; and (iii) the other editor, Soxwon, has been doing one thing after the next since we took ChildofMidnight to ANI with this mediation being, IMHO, the latest effort after exhausting seemingly every "this violates ____ policy" argument. Perhaps all mediations have such issues but this has been spectacularly frustrating to be patient with. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so much a plea for mediation as it is a plea to change the wikipedia feature that allows any user to revert or UNDO an entire set of edits.

I had this happen multiple times this month when attempting to edit several pages on Indonesian history and politics, which appear to be managed somewhat possessively by davidelit and a couple other dedicated editors.

Basically, entire sets of changes were reverted wholesale, ignoring minor grammar changes and other valid corrections while refuting more substantial issues.

This seemed to be not only a waste of my time, but indicative of people too busy to review all the changes and judge each on its own merit(s).

For example, on the page about SUPERSEMAR, a new section on humor (admittedly unreferenced, but so is the quip in the lead of WP article on Raul Manglapus -- both bits are useful as cultural context) was deleted entirely.

It took three tries to change the pronoun of a book title translated from Indonesian (see talk page). Punctuation and grammar errors in paragraph 2 under Controversy were repeatedly reinserted by means of the UNDO feature. Updated research from Tempo magazine January 2008 was deemed "redundant" in discussion, even though a leading Indonesian magazine published it because it shed new light on the document's authenticity.

Some improvement occurred thru give and take, but not as much as could have been achieved, given the time spent.

A related page is a link from History of Indonesia that has been renamed several times but is presently "Start of the New Order". It seems to rely too much on the axiom of a sharp dichotomy between left and right. Despite abundant inline citations, there are still plenty of places where POV creeps into the colorful writing of this account of a highly charged and very turbulent period of the country's history. The reader sees plenty of emotional terminology outside the parts of text that have citations:

Internal military power-struggle section still has the POV "stand up to" as if WP is supporting a group that opposed a sitting president, despite my cutting this phrase and describing POV on the talk page. Political maneuvering section has phrases like "increasingly vociferous" and "heated debates" that are not attributable to sources. Anti-Chinese laws section is pretty much conventional wisdom here in Indonesia, where I have lived for the past 17 years, but terms like "hysteria" sound a bit opinionated for WP (though probably accurate). I flagged "citation needed" here.

Again see talk page, and review the changes -- some give and take occurred, but much time was wasted and the (ab)use of revert/undo negated several changes that are not controversial.

Finally, there is the current events page Indonesian Legislative Election, 2009 which presents a summary of exit polls and projected results. I was outvoted in my attempt to refer to the WP page on the 2004 elections, which shows that one party which outpolled another in national tally ended up with 10 fewer seats in parliament. This was deemed "to be expected" and then "anomalous" by the same editor, who was having second and third thoughts.

OK, I can go with that, particularly since my additions re open list and closed list were heartily welcomed. However, it took 3 or 4 (count em!) attempts to get the erroneous math 20% of 560 seats = 112 corrected. Again, editors were reverting changes in their entirely without checking. I also suspect that there was blind reliance on a cited source that may itself have made the arithmetic mistake -- thus, people zealous about WP policy to cite sources (which has inherent flaws, but that's another topic if you're interested) may have refused to pick up a calculator because they were simply following what their source told them.

Perhaps you can take a little time to review the talk for the above three pages and look at the history of changes and UNDO events during April.

Martindo (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhilKnight could you explain how the article 韩鸿翼 you deleted is vandalism, I asked NawlinWiki earlier why they deleted the article too, they used A1 and A7 in edit summary. I am just curious as I placed a {{notenglish}} tag on it. Maybe the article you deleted was different to the one deleted previous but I would just like to know for future new page patroling when I come across foreign language articles thanks. BigDunc^Talk 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigDunc, I deleted the page to remove the vandalism from the editing history, but forgot to restore. Thanks for the prompt. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google translate, and it seems that it can probably be deleted under A7. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mufka has deleted it now again under A7 thanks for swift reply. BigDunc^Talk 16:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... why would you remove material from maximum sustainable yield without any explanation? This is work in active progress by what appears to be two new editors editing from a joint account. So far they have done an excellent job taking the article to an almost definitive level, and I don't understand the point of making unexplained and discouraging deletions in the middle of their efforts. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about - my edits removed an obvious mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I looked at this diff and misinterpreted it :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I recently came into conflict with User:Tarc, and since you're the head of the mediation cabal, I thought I'd ask for advice on the best way to proceed. A few days ago, I became aware that a problematic message was being posted at the top of numerous talk pages - here is what it looks like

Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here.

I considered this message problematic because it

1. incorrectly labels a guideline as a policy, thus giving it more weight than it deserves
2. attempts to shut down productive discussion along relevant lines on article talk pages, where such discussion belongs - while the substance of a guideline should not be discussed at article Talk pages, its applicability in each particular case surely does.
3. is not maintainable, since it is not designed to reflect the current state of the guideline.

I considered this an uncontroversial removal; however, User:Tarc (among others, but mostly Tarc) objected to it, in the form of several reversions. We had an unproductive discussion at User talk:Tarc, after which Tarc removed an improved tag which User:Jasy jatere and I had worked on diff. What do you think would be an appropriate next step for me to take? I have no urgency about the matter, but I'm not inclined to back down and allow this sort of thing to stand, either. Thanks, Ray^Talk 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new template imaginatively titled {{terrorist}}, which uses wording taken from the guideline. Would replacing the textbox added by Tarc with this template be an acceptable compromise? PhilKnight (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the right path, but it would certainly need a link somewhere in the text to WP:WTA since that is what this is all about. Perhaps a name alteration as well to reflect that it is a warning box about the usage of the word "terrorist" and such, rather than being about terrorism itself. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link; I don't think the naming of the template is particularly a problem. If there are no objections, we can go ahead and start replacing those messages with the template, and refer arguments over the precise wording of the template to the template talk page. Ray^Talk 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I do believe the naming is a problem, as I elaborated upon above. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc, what name would you prefer? PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{wordstoavoid}}, perhaps? The current wording is only a hop away from the already existing {{terrorism}}. Avoiding ambiguity would be the rationale here. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about {{wpterrorist}}? That way we don't get into ambiguity about all the other words at wta. Ray^Talk 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or {{wordstoavoid-terrorist}}? PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'll do, unless you want to make it more generic and applicable to other problem terms/issues. I really don't know much about template parsing and variables, but a functionality like {{wordstoavoid|terrorist}}, {{wordstoavoid|racist}} would insert the word into the text, and could see it adopted for use elsewhere. Tarc (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, where would I go to look for information on how to use the switches and other options in the Template page? Help:Advanced templates was difficult to understand. Ray^Talk 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I copied the coding from the {{notability}} template. PhilKnight (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your response for my request to block User_talk:207.28.255.174, however I feel a 48-hour block is inadequate since the last (and 7th) time this user was warned was 141 hours ago, and the user's history shows that they spread their vandalism out over many weeks.VegKilla (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VegKilla, I've increased the block to a week. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!VegKilla (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the image again; for the third time??? Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I deleted the image because you didn't specify a license. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]