User talk:PhilKnight/Archive93

Reply

Thanks for the unblock review. I understand the reasons behind your decision. Something weird seems to be happening. I can edit fine from desktop or mobile site but not through the app despite being on the same connection. Any thoughts?

Sorry if this messes up the talk page. I'm not great with the mobile site.

Usual people in life (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no bright ideas. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrongful Deletion of EmuDX!

In 2008, You decided without any real reason to remove the page about EmuDX as you found it to be "Non-notable software, makes unsubstantiated and somewhat extraordinary claims." Just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it unimportant. EmuDX was years ahead of its time and the techniques used were applied to Microsoft XBOX live when they started selling emulated arcade games, even people who were credited in EmuDX worked on these titles. Whilst EmuDX may not have been responsible for XBOX Live, it was still the first of its kind.

I hope you can see the error of your ways and accept that you have denied some quite significant software its place in the spotlight just because you had never heard of it. MikeDX (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the page. For what's it worth, you only had to ask; there's no need to make a song and dance about it. PhilKnight (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth? Since when do you get to decide what is worthy or not? It's people like you that stop people like me donating to wikipedia. MikeDX (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an expression. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, you 'proposed' my own page was deleted too Mike_Green_(game_developer). How many other pages have been given a death sentence due to your whims? MikeDX (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) MikeDX, you need to tone down your discourse. If you take a look here, the EmuDX page was proposed for deletion under WP:PROD by User:Ham Pastrami. When the PROD tag expired uncontested, an uninvolved admin (PhilKnight in this case) deleted the page in accordance with this policy. Same is the case with your article. - NQ (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits concerning a serious accusation

Hi As a victim from this school I am speaking the truth, a truth that has been exposed many times by the Irish government I would like the details re inserted please. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymcgurrin (talk • contribs)

Hi. Unless you have reliable sources, the content is not admissible on Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

understood. Will see what I can do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymcgurrin (talk • contribs)

Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence

Hello, There is an edit, or revert, war on Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad. Would you mind taking a look? Tags were added to assess its significance as secondary sources originate from a single paper indicating geographical restriction at the local level. Thanks, --J.B.M.D. 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jelly Bean MD, I'd strongly suggest you don't continue the reverting. Instead of tagging the page for speedy deletion, you could nominate it for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive by tagging and PRODing. The {{COI}} was out of my head, because it was added without making any prior investigation. I find it hard that these editors are actually demanding for the material. Of course Wikipedia:AFD may help them. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PhilKnight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly Bean MD (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Dwavenhobble

What are you doing? Okay, the editor wrongly characterized some edits as vandalism, but this editor is hardly the first one to do it and stripping the editor of talk page access is a bit much given the equally unwarranted indef, especially since they seem to recognize the error.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The diff you mention contains the following wikilawyering "As said rule cannot be cited therefore this ban is due to bias alone and counts as a defamation action. So can you therefore cite a rule which has been broken as if consensus cannot be established there is no reason for the edit to have occurred". Under the circumstances, I think revoking talk page access is reasonable, and the user can still make an appeal by email. PhilKnight (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you know, when an inexperienced editor is making a good-faith edit and they get stampeded by a bunch of impersonal wikilawyers bludgeoning them with the process, they may say some other stuff inexperienced editors are wont to say.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It genuinely seems that PhilKnight can't control himself. - Random internet person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.82.39 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello PhilKnight, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, --L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

That IP

Hi, Merry Christmas. You'll remember the floating IP that, after a debate about whether to ban him or not, was given a "second" chance by admins Yngvadottir and Drmies, who agreed to keep an eye on him and make sure he did not edit war or make personal attacks. The IP has continued to edit war (4 reverts in a 24h period [1], [2], [3], then he changed IPs and continued reverting [4]) and this received no sanction. He continues to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, making personal attacks while edit-warring [5], culminating in this direct threat to another user (the second part of this edit) [6]. "You'll get what's coming to you"? Really? It's somehow more unpleasant when you know that the target editor is female. This threat was removed numerous times by other editors, and was restored eight times by the IP within an hour and a half. It was eventually, incredibly, restored by Drmies [7]. This is just not acceptable. Yngvadottir and Drmies are patently not going to apply any rules to this IP, so what can be done? I refuse to engage with this character, or either of the two admins, as I will receive zero protection from similar attacks and threats. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the whole situation is weird. If a logged in editor behaved this badly they would be site banned, however it's somehow ok for an IP to behave like this. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just noticed you blocked the IP. I find the block hard to understand since the edit warring on talk pages had ended and the IP's latest exchange had been undoing a revert of a change with clear explanations - and his version remains in the article. I don't see teh preventative function of this block. However, it's easier to understand with the above. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the IP's behaviour is around the borderline of what is blockable, which explains why good faith, long term Wikipedians are split more or less evenly as to whether to revert and block, or treat him as a valued editor. From my perspective, I consider behaviour such as this, which combines edit warring with being uncivil, as disruptive, and thus blockable. However, that was obviously a few days ago, and I understand your concerns. Anyway, if you or any other admin wants to unblock, I won't object. PhilKnight (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm hugely involved; this time out I argued with him about whether he was stepping into personal attack territory, and I was a prime mover in getting him this fresh chance. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I really wish I hadn't bothered. I hadn't been concerned with this guy for weeks until I saw the threat to SummerPhD; I have no idea how many IPs he's used lately. Now I'm back on his bizarre list of harrassers and stalkers, which will of course go unsanctioned. Clearly this IP editor has his own set of rules that apply to him and nobody else, and he is protected no matter what he does. I just wish certain people had the integrity to admit it. Yngvadottir, do you really have to ask the question about whether he's "stepping into personal attack territory"? Can you not just see it for yourself? Are you not just a little bit too close to this guy now? How would you feel if I told you that you're going to get what's coming to you? To the IP (since he will obviously read this): I have no interest in stalking you, interacting with you or engaging with you on any level. You carry on abusing whomever you see fit; admins clearly don't care what you do, and there's nowhere else to take it, so you'll never have to worry again about me taking issue with your talk page edits. Aren't the rest of us just mugs for registering, huh? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's why I argued with him. But riddle me this: is it possible he hadn't come to your attention in a while because he had been simply editing articles? Unlike registered editors, those on dynamic IPs are hard to trace - they only come to one's attention when a dispute blows up or when they do something noticeable. Isn't that what we want, for someone to just edit articles and not come into conflict with others? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

His previous IP was blocked for 3 months, so I think that's at least part of the reason why we haven't heard of him recently. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir Oh no, I've seen enough of his edits to know he was always around; he has this unique style of condescending edit summary which pops up all over the place. Every time he edits a Formula One article, I see it as they're all on my watchlist. But I've never checked his talk pages or followed his IPs around, or tried to trace him as he flits about. Some of his edits are fine, others not so much – but my time is worth more than to prompt him into edit wars simply by reverting him, and then be accused of yet more crap that I haven't done, while admins stand about looking for excuses for him. Yes, we want people to just edit articles and not come into conflict with others – but this guy does both. Always has, always will. It's clear as day to most people who've encountered him. But as I say, while he doesn't direct his business at me personally, I don't care any more. As far as I'm concerned, he's free to do what he wants without fear of any input from me. It's high time I scaled down my editing anyway, and this is a great reason to do that. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when the time comes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I see flagrantly false claims about me bandied around, I wonder if the people making them are being malicious or simply stupid. When the same people make false claims over and over again, the stupidity required is implausible, and therefore I have to assume dishonesty. PhilKnight falsely and repeatedly claimed, a while ago, that I had been banned. He then tried to get me banned to retrospectively justify his false claim. Having failed with that, I see he maintains a grudge and a propensity to lie, finding a block from August 2013 and trying to imply that it was recently applied. Is he too stupid to know what year it is? I don't think so. Is he throwing whatever mud he can at me in the hope that some of it sticks? I think so.

And Bretonbanquet claims to have "no interest in stalking you, interacting with you or engaging with you on any level", which doesn't really square with his attempts to get me blocked, just a few inches up the page. Is he too stupid to notice that he contradicts himself? I don't think so. Is he affecting exasperation in the hope of gaining some kind of sympathy from admins who might then take his side? I think so.

And he further claims that I am "protected no matter what he does", and that "admins clearly don't care what you do". Is he unaware of the attack page which lists in extensive detail how untrue that is? I don't think so. Is he once again trying to present himself as a victim by making stuff up? I think so.

I assume you find this fun. I hope that whatever fun it provides you is worth it. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hey folks, although I blocked the IP in August 2013, I haven't been involved since (to my knowledge), but in digging through some of this, do you realize how many IP addresses this person is using (and using them disruptively too). Many geolocate to London or nearby, but some geolocate to other continents, which gives you an idea of how this person is able to jump around. Frankly, I can't see why we're "protecting" them. I tend to agree with Phil that if this were a named account, none of this would be tolerated. Anyway, I don't plan to take any action at this point because I don't want to step on the toes of so many admins (too many cooks in the kitchen), but I did want to express my opinion on the matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• IP, I don't think anyone finds this fun at all. Personally, I don't find the "best known for" to be worth going to war for, though if you peruse my contributions carefully you'll find me repeatedly removing the phrase. Phil, I have no doubt that plenty of editors might want to revert me in such articles and that plenty of them decide against it cause I have a shiny user page and a bacon badge on it. I do not agree that "had this been a registered user they would have been banned already"--had this been a registered user they wouldn't have been reverted so often, leading to the escalation of these conflicts and the name calling. See, you and I (and Bbb) simply don't get called "vandal", though we get called lots of other things. Being called that sets off the IP's alarm, and then things spiral out of control. Whether the IP's response is proportionate to the initial provocation, and whether "our" response is proportionate to their response, well, we've been battling over that for some time now. But no, dear IP editor, I'm not clairvoyant but no one is enjoying this, I'm pretty sure about that. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I can certainly see how being called a vandal would get one's back up. That said, I don't think I've ever called this IP any name, let alone 'vandal'. Yet he's called me a troll, a liar and stupid more times than I care to remember, including in this discussion. I've seen editors (both IP and registered) blocked without coming anywhere near the level of abuse he hands out – it's inequality, pure and simple – this guy is protected. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not called you stupid anywhere in this discussion. I specifically said the opposite. No surprise to see yet another false claim from you. And claiming that I am "protected", in a thread in which you appealed successfully for an admin chum of yours to block me, is too absurd for words. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, you called both Bretonbanquet and Phil Knight stupid above, and don't wikilawyer your way out of it with your phrasing. You're just lucky that Drmies, whose badge is shinier than mine, has some sympthay for you. I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I said: Is he too stupid to know what year it is? I don't think so. It's hardly ambiguous. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Whoops!

You didn't actually revoke the talk page for Matthew J Falkner (talk · contribs). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You Have Email!

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

User:ToQ100gou

Can you take a quick look at the page history? Have a good 2015. INeverCry 04:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky's IP

Special:Contributions/5.81.217.96 is disruptive editing again. 183.171.182.214 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate revdel

Was your mass rev del appropriate or nec on the GGTF arb page? You missed quite a bit of it btw. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It was intended to remove 'outing' of an IP address. Having said that, it may have been a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The outing you are talking about was the sockpuppetry evasion that ended up being in a SPI. There was no outing at all just a user who lied and got their hand caught in the cookie jar. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather is the relevant background. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll self revert. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you hope you enjoy the new year. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Image Deletion Request on Wikipedia Account

Request reason:

Creating imagery or of Prophet hurts thousand of Muslims around the world as its insulting. I have made this disruptive editing on this prestigious knowledge sharing platform. Being a Muslim, it hurt me as well. I request you to remove these images related to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Thousands of the Muslims will be obliged as sentiments involved. Shaizee (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Decline reason:

Wikipedia recognizes that the inclusion of images is controversial in some, though not all, traditions. However, our policy on not censoring articles forbids us from taking any actions to delete or remove these images. I hope you can understand our position. Instructions on stopping Wikimedia images from showing in your browser can be found at Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Response:

You are very right and I hope you will respond after reading this. Suppose someone adds "uncensored" pictures of your family or yourself on portal like this. What you will opt for, will you block in your own browser or ask for the removal. There are 2.2 billion Muslims around the world, and i leave it you the answer, will you ask for 2.2 billions individuals to stop images in your browsers or to remove them for the sake of peaceful world.

I humbly request you again to reconsider this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaizee (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Redban02

Ahem. Suggest reverting and blocking that account from editing their own talk page, as three lengthy unblock requests within a day and a half is rather beyond the pale. Incidentally, they've really gone out of their way to prove that the Redban "retirement" was in bad faith, as has been pretty much everything they've said and done under whatever account. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Postdlf, thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Blocked from editing

I dont understand why I have been blocked from editing. I wasnt the one deleting vital information for the case. Why shoul I be the only one punished and not luke. Luke was reverting my edits too. This is favouring an old established user versus a potential new editor. If new editors receive this treatment its going to be very hard to grow your numbers. Please take the time to check the edits I made to the edit warring page and you will see they were well researched valid comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.6.162 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Attack Page CSD

Thanks, I appreciate the user targetted is subject to a global ban, but an obvious attack page like that doesn't help matters. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

ygm

I've sent you an email. Do take a look when you have the time. Regards - NQ (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

UxUmbrella

As the last admin who reviewed their block, I would suggest that you revisit User talk:UxUmbrella and read their latest post. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. PhilKnight (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

greetings

Hi. I sent you an email. Cheers, HG | Talk 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for helping me understand the blocking/unblocking process and explaining the methods to resolve these sorts of conflicts, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to clean it up

The whole "origins" sub-heading is far too in-depth and it seems redundant and irrelevant when a general summary for ethnic composition of Haitians already exists under the "ethnic groups" sub-heading.

The "origins" text belongs in a history of haiti article in my opinion.

LordBeerus (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining - I've self reverted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with a case

Hi Phil;

I was wondering if you could help the committee with some input on a current case. Basically, we have two accounts which are mutually incompatible and they need analysis. As you have done this in the past, you may wish to help again. It's all explained here. Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thanks for letting me know about this. I'll see if I have time. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Phil. Your help would be greatly appreciated,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Stone Massage

Dear Mr. Knight,

I am the inventor of stone massage, as outlined in my works, including, The Art of Stone Healing. I will be editing the "Stone Massage" Wikipedia page in order to remove erroneous information and supply readers with the most accurate information regarding this technique.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. You can contact me at any time via e-mail at sonia@stone-healing.com

Do you have reliable sources to support your edits to the article? PhilKnight (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Kyle massey

Why did you delete my recent additions to Wikipedia? All my additions were tooken from the Cory in the House dvd book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.148.58 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)