User talk:PhilKnight/Archive50

Suzan Lewis' right to exist

Good Morning, afternoon and/or evening Phil, I would like advice on what procedure to follow to keep factual information that I am trying to ad to a page from continuously being deleted. Jerry Lewis has another daughter, Suzan. I have tried twice to add her name to his list of children without success. She has been accepted by the Lewis family members and there is no dispute that she is his real daughter. Is there a way to block the removal of accurate information from a page? For reference, please GOOGLE Suzan Lewis daughter of entertainer Jerry Lewis on the web and on images. You may also view her videos on several sources such as youtube, metacafe, google and aol. She has appeared onstage at several places including the Helium Comedy club in Philadelphia. She will also be appearing soon in New York. If you want confirmation, feel free to check with Jerry Lewis, but she does not deserve this harassment and vandalism. I look forward to your solution to this situation. Thanks in advance.Sterlingbishop (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted (elastic binary tree) ?

Hello,

I just discovered today that an article I recently created was deleted, with this log : 00:18, 29 November 2008 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Elastic binary tree" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Article appears to be based on original research by article author, W. Tarreau, with citations only to his own web site. Also, no citation of independent, verifiable sources to establish notability.)

Several people have asked me how these trees work, so I originally wanted to explain that on my site, then figured it was obviously more logical to complete the exhaustive list of articles on the subject right here. I don't understand why the source is said to be non-verifiable since a link to an existing implementation and an open-source project using it are given. I tried to be as neutral as possible on the article, following the style of other ones on related subjects. If I did anything wrong, please indicate me, but I don't understand and am quite surprised since I received no notification of the deletion process. Is there something I must do so that the page is undeleted ? Or if people think it's not suitable for Wikipedia for whatever obscure reasons, could I please get the text back so that I find another place to put it ?

Thanks in advance.

Wtarreau (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wtarreau, I've restored the article, and opened a discussion here. If you are looking for an other site to post the content, then Google's Knol site could be suitable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks Phil, that was pretty fast !

BTW, I'm not particularly looking for another site, I'm just trying to understand why people find it unsuitable, then how I can improve the article's quality so that this does not happen again ; it took me a full day to write it and I couldn't improve it further in such a limited time :-/. Anyway, thanks for having opened a discussion. I'm not yet used to all these tools, it was my first article, I'll try to improve. Willy.

Wtarreau (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Elastic binary tree

Just a quick note to let you know new AFD discussions are supposed to go on top of the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mgm, thanks for letting me know, it's because I use the AutoAFD script. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A1 Class

Please see the article's talk page. I've given my view of where the article needs improvement, and urged Tony May, MickMacNee and Biscuittin to work together on the article, improving it in the areas that they agree on, and suggested a way on how to achieve consensus on the area that they disagree on. So far, Biscuittin has shown the most positive response. MickMacNee and Tony May are still entrenched in their POVs. IMHO, this dispute is overdue for RFC, but I don't see the point of doing that while the informal mediation process is still open. If the three of them would only start talking to each other instead of shouting at each other progress could be made. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore image: File:Roubini photo.jpg

The image had a complete and detailed fair use rationale and image source and was deleted without any way to repair whatever problem you found. There was no notice posted on my talk page or on the article discussion page. Please note that about six months ago your bot speedily deleted, without warning, another image I had uploaded. After contacting you and reinforming you that it was under a PD claim, you quickly restored the image. Hope you can check into this.

This is my understanding of the rules.

Missing non-free use rationale. Non-free images or media claiming fair use but without a use rationale may be deleted seven days after they are tagged.

If you remove an image from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles on which the images were previously used (see talk page). Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwatcher1, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. Regarding your comments, I disagree with some of the points you've raised, for example, the image didn't have a valid fair use rationale. Also, the image had a notice indicating that it was going to be deleted after December 10. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was tagged as such until now.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the image got deleted. Since the image fair use rationale had been updated since it was last tagged for disussion, with no negative responses, should this be reverted? Thanks.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Safety Issue bates method article

Please take a look at the Bates method article. Paragraph sunning and the arguments I gave on the discussion page.

See * [[1]]

former version :

See * [[2]] and the current paragraph about sunning.

In my opinion a very important safety issue.

( Note also the wikipedia internal links have been removed ! )

Regards, Seeyou (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there!

Thanks for your helps in European American article. You know, I don't have much time to watch that article so if you don't mind, please add that to your watchlist. And if there is any problem again, please block it for a longer period. Thank you. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Protected Lena Soderberg

It amazes me that he would ask for, and that you would grant, protection for a page with a "slow motion edit war" and a currently active good-faith discussion ongoing. I attempted to edit the article to use the photo in a way that was more clearly about the photo, rather than just about illustrating the subject, to make it clear that the image is irreplaceable for this purpose, thus:

Photo "Lenna" used in image processing

Her photo (known as Lenna) is often used in the field of digital image processing. She was a guest at the 50th annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science and Technology in 1997 where she was busy signing autographs, posing for pictures, and giving a presentation about herself.

Now I'm not asking you to rule on whether this is acceptable, just unprotect the article so that the usual process can continue until consensus is achieved. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dicklyon, when the talk page discussion achieves consensus, then let me know, and I'll unprotect. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is very annoying, and not the usual process. Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight - I doubt if a consensus can be reached on the inclusion of the Lenna image in the Lena Soderberg article, even though the discussion is semi-civilized. Could you please read the Lena Soderberg talk page? I have attempted to discuss rules and policy for this special case with those who oppose its inclusion, but they are unable or unwilling to do this. Every time they venture into a discussion of the meaning and proper application of Wikipedia policy, they flounder, and they have now fallen back to their default position of declaring themselves to be authorities who are not to be questioned.

The Lenna image (and all "standard test images") are a very special case, and these images are constantly hounded by those wishing to eliminate them without understanding their nature or status in the image-processing community and literature. I would certainly like to see the standard test image included in the Lena Soderberg article since it is far and away more important than her appearance in Playboy per se that has given her a claim to fame. But even more importantly, I would like to be able to refer anyone to a particular page that would explain the application of Wikipedia policy to this and other standard test images, whether this particular page suits me or not. This would prevent a lot of the misunderstandings that produce these edit wars on the standard test image pages.

I wonder if mediation would be appropriate here? I am at this point convinced that the image belongs on the Lena Soderberg page, and I am unable to make any headway with those who oppose its inclusion. Thanks for any help you can offer. PAR (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi PAR, unfortunately there isn't much scope for a compromise - either the image is included or it isn't - so under these circumstances, I'm not sure that mediation is the best option. PhilKnight (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Given that there is no reasoned argument against it, how may we go about including it? PAR (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mohegan Sun Arena image

Concerning Image:ArenaatMoheganSun.jpg

Hi, I recently uploaded a new version of the picture. There was already a picture of the arena there and I had sorted it out with someone that my rationale was acceptable. However, when I uploaded a new version under the same licensing, it was marked.

The rationale remained the same.

Cameras are NOT under any circumstances allowed into the arena except by media personell. Someone who had a camera in the arena (a media person) took this photograph. I then asked for permission to use this photo here on wikipedia. They said they would have no problem with that whatsoever. I licensed the photo properly. I gave credit to the photographer properly. I gave rationale which was PREVIOUSLY accepted. So I do not know why this picture was tagged for deletion.

Thank you, Nickv1025 (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nickv1025, I've restored the image, and opened a discussion here. 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Richardson

Can you please tell me why the posters "File:Poster Slacky Flat small.JPG" and the other one pertaining to the "Last Voyage of the Gracie Anne" were deleted?

I uploaded both, under the impression that entertainment posters could be uploaded. Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm, a posters can be used in articles that are about the event the poster is promoting. They can't be used in other articles, such as a biography. PhilKnight (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For cleaning up a giant backlog that I left at CAT:DFUI. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning

I'm curious why you decided to put keep on the following discussions: here, here, and here. You don't agree that they violate the WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTWEBHOST sections of the What Wikipedia is not policy? One line in the Notwebhost section states: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." The files when they were nominated were not used in any articles and gave no indication that they'd ever be.--Rockfang (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rockfang, instead of nominating them for deletion, in my humble opinion, it would have been better if you had tagged them {{Move to Commons}}. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Some images I do mark as Move To Commons. I even use a script that is capable of marking images as such. But I typically only do that for images that are currently used in an article. I'm not sure you answered my question fully though. Do you think the images violate policy?--Rockfang (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: File:Victoryhighschool.jpg and File:Victory1941.jpg

I see you have deleted the images File:Victoryhighschool.jpg and File:Victory1941.jpg. Was there something wrong with the FUR? The noms at IfD were for possible copyvio, however with the FUR's attached they should have been fine and I see no consensus or disucssion about invalid FUR's at all. If you could restore those two or provide a reason why they failed fair use. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Soundvisions1, I've restored the images. PhilKnight (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

socks and blocks ... maybe

Hi Phil, I think I am being wikistalked by this single purpose (so far) account. I think Slapdown is a sockpuppet of [3], whom you identified as a blocked user using sockpuppets (see also this blocked user, I suspect they are all the same: [4]). Obnoxious messages on my talk page are really just a minor irritant, but if this user is continuing to use sock-puppets to evade blocks, then it ought to be documented. Could you check up on it for me or should I ask someone else? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slrubenstein, I think Slapdown's behavior so far is easily enough to justify a 48 hour block. However, it does seem unlikely that a new account would target you in this manner, so I guess s/he is somebody's sock, and it could well be Jagz. I think you should consider filing a request for check user. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - isn't this a block violation? I am confused. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Deleting Article on "Technology Across the Curriculum" Progam?

Hi, Phil.

I noticed that you deleted the article on George Mason University's Technology Across the Curriculum Program, which I wrote.

You mentioned that you didn't think the program was noteworthy enough to merit an encyclopedia entry.

The program has often been cited as the "best of its kind," which is why it won the awards I mentioned in the article. I think it actually has been featured in various books and articles. (If you'd like, I can look up and provide further references.) The program has been widely praised and widely emulated by other universities.

I hope you'll consider reinstating the article. Unfortunately, I didn't make a copy of it, so if it disappears from Wikipedia, it's truly "gone for good."

Lesliedrewh (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Leslie Harris

Hi Lesliedrewh, I've restored the article. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nash

Thanks very much for fixing. I see from the talk page I'm not alone in having trouble with the template, which is a relief. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hour of the Time

Sorry if I am not doing this right. I've never done this before. I saw that the page for Bill Cooper's radio show Hour of the Time was removed due to it not being of interest to non-locals. I'm not a local (I'm from another country actually) and I'm interested in Cooper's work. Is there anyway you can stick the page back up? Jewels42 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Jewels

Hi Jewels42, I've restored the article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

editing advice

i'm confused, what exactly are you referring to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.191 (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

hi, I'm sorry, I misread the article history. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

not to worry then, i was just concerned i may have inadvertently done something wrong, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.182.191 (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for blocking user Peanislover69 - A pest. On the same subject, a question: I thought I did this edit as a 'rollback (VANDAL)', but it is showing in the history as the work of the same user Peanislover69 who did the vandalism originally. I'm a bit confused - Did I do something wrong? Marek.69 ^talk 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How do I move things to archives?

A dumb question, so I apologize in advance. I recently started editing the minimum wage article and the talk page there apparently does not get archived regularly. Do I just cut and paste from the talk page to the talk archives, or is there a more elegant way to do it? Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Academic38, have a look at WP:ARCHIVE, however in practice, cut and pasting is often the best method. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. Academic38 (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hank Green

Hello PhilKnight,

I'd like to draw attention to Hank Green's page (or lack thereof). I belive that there is plenty enough information on Hank Green to give him his own page. He has his own website, and we could easily ask him for information. I think that his own page is long overdue - especially after getting featured on YouTube for "Accio Deathly Hallows" and the whole "Project For Awesome" thing. I think he deserves a page just as much as John Green does.

Thanks. Kaori242 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

TrackIR article dispute resolution request

Hello, this is a request for dispute resolution regarding the notability, original research and NPOV of the criticism section in the [TrackIR] article. It is currently in an edit war. Have attempted and failed to engage the other user on the Discussion page, if you could provide arbitration that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tha Target (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Shri Krishan Institute of Engineering & Technology

Phil., are you aware you deleted after JClemens declined to delete it? There is non-infringing material are the page & all such univ. pages can be stubbified. DGG (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, looking at the version I deleted, apart from the infobox, almost the entire article is written in the style of an advertisement, in addition to being a copyright violation. However, if you want to restore and subbify, then go ahead. The protection was obviously intended to prevent the original author from reposting, but considering he has now been blocked, I've unprotected. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would note that the original author or an associate in copyright violation used an IP to make several of the reverts, so perhaps it would be useful to protect the page against non-seasoned, logged-in users until there is sufficient non-copied material in the article. Bongomatic 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bongomatic, good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow and thanks

Wow for being so fast in protecting that talk page and thanks for doing so, guy was getting on my nerves with his trolling. Speaking, can you remove that last comment he left? Happy Holidays! Rgoodermote  02:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rgoodermote, no problem. Happy Holidays! PhilKnight (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)