User talk:PhilKnight/Archive79

Protection on talk page?

Hi. :) I WP:CSD#F9ed an image right before heading off on vacation, and followed up to find several other images of concern from the same contributor. Twinkle had notified him of the F9 (on my request) automatically, but when I went to manually add notice to the PUF listing for the other images, I found his talk page had been fully protected. Since talk pages are not typically protected even for retired people (at least now; I don't remember how we did things in 2008 :D), I figured I'd better ask: is there a reason that User talk:SomeUsr should now be fully protected? Should I remove the CSD notice I already placed? It's not a big deal to me either way, but I feel a bit uneasy about having unwittingly edited it to place the F9 warning, but not to let him know about the PUF. Seems like I should be consistent either way. :) (Sorry for the delay in asking you about it; I inadvertently approached User:Tiptoety thinking he had placed the protection, but he protected the user page.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moonriddengirl, the user requested full protection, and in the context of the user leaving the project, I granted the request. Given the user hasn't edited since 2008, I don't think it matters. PhilKnight (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll just leave him half-notified and move on. I'm just uncomfortable editing a fully protected page to leave a garden variety notice, but also feel peculiar editing it to remove the garden variety notice. Seems like Twinkle would say something when the page is fully protected! I'll get over it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello, trying to put an image and more articles into Kyle Muirs wiki page. The image location and article web addresses are as follows:

image:

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/69/73/5008dcdf4e2990053c9a6c5725ff.jpeg&imgrefurl=http://www.thestar.com/article/849654--new-centennial-college-course-covers-the-wild-west-world-of-producing-webisodes&h=409&w=615&sz=31&tbnid=UZXekYbJGV8RkM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkyle%2Bmuir&zoom=1&q=kyle+muir&usg=__foh2KqEPqA9XhEwZRsOc5UAAOBY=&sa=X&ei=83UETfTLIceenQfYxL3lDQ&ved=0CDsQ9QEwBw

Articles: http://www.thestar.com/article/849654--new-centennial-college-course-covers-the-wild-west-world-of-producing-webisodes

http://virtual.torontosun.com/doc/torontosun/ContinuingEducation/2010110801/3.html

Thanks and sorry for the confusion,

Phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.105.70 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki

What egregious sin did Shuki commit by making this statement? Second, I counted nine editors who were either confused by LHvU's statement on consensus or disagreed with him outright. Where do you see community consensus when 9 editors oppose? I put this on your page rather than AE because I wanted to make sure you saw the question.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jiujitsuguy, my comment was in reply to T. Canens, where I had previously indicated that I disagreed with a 6-month topic ban, on the grounds that Shuki's editing could be understood as believing there was consensus for a legality statement in the main body of the article, but not the lede. I asked Shuki about this and the reply, which you've linked to, indicates that my understanding was wrong, and that T. Canens was correct. Secondly, even if LHvU's close was wrong, which I don't think it is, that wouldn't justify edit warring, instead the appropriate course of action would be to hold a discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just one more question. Do you think that someone who makes this comment and this comment and refuses to retract or repudiate those comments, should be editing in the topic area or for that matter, editing in any topic area? Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the comments are unhelpful, however they're also dated June 2009, so I don't consider them actionable. PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already received a topic ban for those kinds of comments where I also said that I wouldn't say those kinds of things again, and I already told Jiujitsuguy about the ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to repudiate those comments and to recognize the repugnancy inherent in them but you seem incapable of understanding how hurtful they are. Simply stating that you won't repeat them and failing to offer even the slightest repudiation means that you still subscribe to these abhorrent views and that is precisely why you should not be editing in this topic area. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insatanity Wikipedia Page deletion

This page should have not been deleted, It was not a repost, it had new information that was asked to be added to sustain it being a page. This page should be allowed to be. It was deleted for improper reasons and encompasses abuse of power by administrators. Ruinsofman (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruinsofman, the article was deleted following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insatanity. PhilKnight (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Finkelstein Affair: BLP and AE issues

Howdy, PhilKnight: There's been some scuffling over at Norman Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) causing me to file a notice at the BLP boards. One editor suggested calling in a knowledgeable admin and perhaps filing over at AE. Since you are both a knowledgeable admin and the AE I-P guy you seemed like the best choice. I'm horrible at these administrative tasks and have no idea where to take this: is this AE material or should it stay at BLP? Thanks, Sol (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sol, I think it is covered by the ArbCom case, so you could report on WP:AE. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Sir Knight, I will assemble my poorly-formatted request post-haste. Sol (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of image—advice/second chance requested

Hi PhilKnight, I understand the fair-use policy of Wikipedia and the need to provide complete rationale for images. I note that you deleted File:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg and provided a reason in doing so. Perhaps you had offered an opportunity for me to augment the rationale and I didn't respond because I failed to put the image on my watchlist. In any event, would it be possible to restore the image and for me to augment the explanation? Specific guidance on how you felt it was inadequately justified would be helpful. My purpose in including the image in Edwin R. Fellows was to illustrate the degree to which his invention and the business that he founded flourished from inception to the time of his death, since the original plant is depicted in the article. I would welcome further opportunities or advice on this matter. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HopsonRoad, I've restored and opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 1#File:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the second chance, PhilKnight. If you don't see what you need at File talk:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg, I'd look forward to some guidance on how to meet the standard at WP:NFCC, which doesn't offer examples on how to meet (or fail) the standard. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elen, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from from username

Hi! Please see this discussion of redirects from subpages of your former username. (I noticed that you hadn't been notified.) Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Black Falcon, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just googled my name (haha) and a Wikipedia page showed up. It said it had been deleted by you. I was just wondering what it said =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.151.36 (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the title of the page? PhilKnight (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title was Krystin Noyes. Please email me if you could. krystin.noyes@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.89.57 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much I'm afraid, it was an uninteresting attack / hoax page. PhilKnight (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne Stable Block

Hi Phil

Can you help with my wikipedia page 'Osborne Stable Block'? I wish to improve this page and include more photos which are relevant to its history. Thank you Richard Harrison Georgegrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegrey (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and

Agree there was no violation of the topic ban, and I have never violated my interaction ban either, and you should not have blocked me because unfair blocks hurt does not matter how long one is. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elections results

I don't know if you were hoping to win or lose, but voters chose you. Welcome (unofficially) aboard! — Coren ^(talk) 01:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren, thanks for letting me know. I look forward to working with you. PhilKnight (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well! I look forward to working with you in the coming year. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team, PhilKnight. I'm pleased to see that the community has chosen a diverse group of editors, and I look forward to working with you all. Email en route. Risker (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, dude. I was against you getting the position and voted against since I think that some inaction on your part has not stifled some of the long term abuse in the I-P conflict. After the recent round of discussions and looking into it during the elections I do believe that you just assume that good outcomes can be possible. Realistically is a good thing and you seem to enjoy the mediation aspect so I hope this is an interesting gig for you. Have fun and thanks for volunteering.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I have been tempted to run for ArbCom in the past, and someone suggested to me that I should run this year because of my mediation efforts, but the time commitment always stops me. Maybe next year... ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. PhilKnight (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for you, congratulations. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't but congrats anyway--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the assist with the Daredevil image rationale!

--GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GentlemanGhost, glad to be of assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Congratulations from me as well. I look forward to working with you over the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I also look forward to working with you. PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Holly Shoot! Congratulations! Vassyana, and now you! Bah!, at those who underestimate our ~~cabal~~ not-cabal of mediation-fun-times! Xavexgoem (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb on you

Hi Phil, I wonder whether you'd mind reviewing the short blurb on you at The Signpost's "Election report", which is due for publication in not much more than 24 hours. I cobbled together the information from your RfA, your userpage, and wherever else I could, hoping it's not a plain repetition of the information about you that was part of the election process. Some of it might be a little out-of-date, and please check for balance, inclusion, tone, etc. We are happy if you edit it yourself, if necessary. Thanks. Tony (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, the blurb looks fine. PhilKnight (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal you blocked is back at it again

This editor created the same vandalism on the same page here as done a month ago. Seems like a 48 hour ban just wasn't enough. This one's pathological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs)

Hi Lhakthong, the IP appears to be static, so I've blocked for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Lhakthong (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re DYK, IPCOLL

Hi, Recently I/P related DYK nominations have become a source of increased contention. DYK articles present unique opportunities and challenges as they get wide exposure to readers as they are listed on the main page, unfortunately they, by their DYK nature, also contain large amounts of newly added information which may not have had wider editorial input. As you may know, there is an AE thread currently regarding a DYK article. One admin, MastCell commented that a blanket ban on I/P related articles may be in order, but later told me that he would rather stay uninvolved with I/P, can't say I blame him. While I would support such a blanket ban, I am not sure that it would gain traction. An alternative, which would be easier to implement would be to require of editors that they list all DYK nominations of articles they have worked on at IPCOLL, at the time it is nominated. Could I have your thoughts on such a requirement? u n☯mi 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unomi, I've replied by email. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are welcome to offer recommendations on the record at WP:AE#jalapenos do exist. I've included Unomi's proposal there. If Unomi feels that more admins ought to respond, leaving a notice at WP:AN would be more kosher, in my opinion. Recently in another case, complaints about canvassing of admins who participate at AE was raised. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I reached out to PhilKnight as he is one of the admins listed at WP:IPCOLL. In hindsight I can see that it can be used to claim canvassing - which is regrettable. I merely wanted to get input on the proposal, as I did not believe it was one which AE could be used to implement. u n☯mi 13:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:DYK

Hi... I noticed your comment at AE in relation to Jalapenos do exist. FYI, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gaming problem in the DYK of civilian casualty ratio on the issue of protecting the integrity of the DYK process, the quality of main page content, and the reputation of DYK contributors. You might be interested in having a look and contributing to the discussion, since you have expressed the view that a discussion at WT:DYK is appropriate.

Also, in regard to your comments about topic bans for "both sides", I hope you do not see editors like me who were involved in the DYK approval / vetting process as being a "side". My only interest in the subject was a neutral article with global balance and reliable sourcing. EdChem (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first comment - thanks for letting me know. In regard to your second comment, I meant something along the lines of option 5 from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles discussion, and I certainly didn't mean you, or other editors involved in the DYK approval process. Apologies for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:InterAct DexDrive.jpg

Can you explain why you deleted this file? It says incomplete FUR, but as I recall the image was not of copyrighted material. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pastrami, it was tagged as {{Non-free game screenshot}}, and was lacking a rationale. Anyway, I've restored the file and reset the timer, so you can have a look, and possibly resolve the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well it's definitely not a screenshot so that is just plain wrong, but it does appear to have been copied from a website, and the image is of unclear origin. So to be safe I will look for another image. Thanks. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-attempt

Template:Uw-attempt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but I got a laugh out of this.

I was doing a little research and came across this page looking for some information on wiseguy Eddie Lino. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Lino

I got a chuckle out of the idea that one of the 4 people who gunned down Paul Castellano was considered a "non-notable gangster". If being one of the guys to kill a boss and then being high profile enough for a legendary boss from another family to order a hit on him (by 2 crooked detectives no less) isn't notable..... you guys are a tough crowd!

Here's a link to an article mentioning Eddie Lino as one of the shooters of Big Paul. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/gotti/house_12.html

Here's a link mentioning Lino's failed hit on "Gaspipe" Casso, which on top of the hit on Paul Castellano (an ally of Gigante's) made "Chin" Gigante (leader of the Genovese family) approve the hit Casso wanted to put on on Eddie Lino. http://books.google.com/books?id=n3PxKZDi67sC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=eddie+lino+wiseguy&source=bl&ots=l7TTzqAQp8&sig=uk4oSLoLFyI4E2r_QhzQ1JjsgVk&hl=en&ei=qWgVTcHCJ4GBlAea57n8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=eddie%20lino%20wiseguy&f=false

The idea behind the hit on Lino was part of a larger plan hatched by Casso to kill Lino and John Gotti. He claimed to have spoken to Chin's brother Ralph about it on several occasions, which Ralph denied. (No one talked directly to Chin except a very few... in fact, Genovese family members and associates used to have to point to their chins in order to refer to Gigante as referring to him by name was a crime punishable by death. He was very paranoid of prosecution.) After Lino and Gotti were killed, Casso reasoned Chin could make the case to the commission that it was revenge for the unsanctioned hit on Castellano. Although Chin Gigante has always denied that he wanted to hit Gotti, it was entirely possible. Chances are good the hit on Lino was approved as a bellwether to see how it was received as a precursor to going after Gotti, with the idea that Casso was expendable if it got too dangerous. The potential benefit of getting rid of John Gotti far outweighed the potential loss of Casso and Gigante could claim ignorance and distance himself from the acts, which is possibly what happened. This is an idea that will most likely never be proven one way or the other due to most the people involved being tight lipped, dead or both.

Lino was considered a heavy hitter in Gotti's crew prior to Gotti ascending to boss. Gotti's crew at the time was the highest earning crew(not to mention terribly violent and murderous)in arguably the most financially productive family in NYC. It would be hard to make the case that he was a "non-notable" gangster, because although he was no Lucky Luciano, he was a rather accomplished and high earning gangster at a key time in NYC mafia history.

I'm sorry to have wasted so much of your time with trivial matters, but like I said I got a pretty good laugh that wiki moderators consider Eddie Lino "non-notable" and I'm sure he would have gotten a laugh from it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianpl79 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SD, I've briefly looked at the evidence, and it certainly looks plausible. Could I ask you to file a SPI report? Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

This is just a note to say that I'm joinng ArbCom tomorrow, so I'll no longer be directly involved in Arbitration Enforcement. Also, I've set up a subpage to give my thoughts about recusals and recall. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just drop this in the arb views/discussion section? –xeno^talk 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Xeno, I've moved the comment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Comic rationale

Template:Comic 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. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace essay

I've written a userspace essay on possible ways to restructure ArbCom. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia space: WP:ArbCom reform. PhilKnight (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom reform. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]