== Not a problem ==-- averagejoe ( talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. No, it is not a problem -- your AfD reasoning is smooth and cogent. Thank you for asking! Ecoleetage ( talk) 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi PhilKnight,
I am a new user to posting on your site. I actually work for Fandango.com and noticed that the page that was created for us, Fandango (Ticket Service) had an outdated logo and information and we didn't like the title. We would prefer Fandango.com. Therefore, I went in to create a new page with updated information, but it was deleted. Can you help me update the information so that it is correct?
Thanks in advance, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyabaker ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Phil. Would it be possible to also link the Fandango (Ticket Service) page from the Fandango Dance Page, Movie Pages, Movietickets.com, Moviefone. Also, I tried to create a Fandango Fun page but that was also deleted. Can you guys create that? Thanks. Jennyabaker ( talk) 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a major rewrite of this article (as promised) and would be interested if you have any comments on it's style etc. (rather than content) as I'm new to making major edits. Thanks in advance. Dpmuk ( talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(Oops, sorry I tried to put this in the wrong place.) Re your notability/AfD concerns, see the following: http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-48,GGLJ:en&um=1&tab=wn&q=Puma+Pac&scoring=d High interest in the presidential election and the size of the Clinton faction are reasons for keeping the page. Also note that this page needs edit-warring protection due to its political nature. Thanks for your new user welcome message but I will be a very very very part-time participant so no adoptive parents needed just yet. Ninasimonejr ( talk) 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Would you be willing to review the block of NewCiaraFan09? The user was blocked for a personal attack on me. I am willing to overlook the attack, which was a pretty lame attempt at an attack, actually, and begin fresh with this user. Thanks! -- InDeBiz1 ( talk) 07:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
why did u revert my edit the information i posted about the unaired pilot was correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.43.66 ( talk) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you tagged the article I created as vandalism. I just wanted to stop in and let you know that it was not intended to be. The meme actually exists, and I was attempting to create an entry on it, but was going to use that as a temporary page. If you would like, I can link some other wiki-esque encyclopedia to you that have entries on this meme. Even then, on the main redirection page for 'Gar', there is a link to the now unused meme definition. Would you like to help me? -- Tarage ( talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello PhilKnight, I've come across a whole "series" of articles that I feel could qualify for deletion. This the Etiquette in <Continent> series, such as Etiquette in Europe (there is a list of links from the general Etiquette article - even Etiquette Worldwide).
However, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and before doing a blanket nomination of almost 10 pages I'd like some feedback from a more experienced editor.
The reason why I feel that this type of article should not be there, because:
If you take out the unencyclopaedic content, not much will remain. The remaining useful content would IMHO much better integrated into each country's 'culture' section or other specialised articles. That would completely eliminate the need for those pages.
Unfortunately, there's no real discussion on the articles itself. It seems that people just browse by, drop a "fact" from personal experience and move on. The only rationale to keep the article (in the case of Europe) was "it's interesting".
However, I'm quite sure that if they are put up for deletion, someone will complain...
Averell ( talk) 08:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a speed response to the request for protection, which is appreciated. It is cool to use your powers like this :) What is really strange is I remember seeing something at the top of the page saying 'semiprotected' or something, but then when I looked for it again I couldn't find it, was imagining it or just overlooking the disclaimer the second go round? Tyciol ( talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason: "You were blocked for engaging in a high speed revert war over a {{ POV}} tag. In future, please be more careful to establish consensus on the talk page or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an revert war. — PhilKnight (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)"
MastCell clearly took sides from the very beginning at Fringe Theories Noticeboard: "I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there" and he continued with his personal criticisms of Reich, which were not up for discussion. His actions were in support of disruptive editing of a page he personally did not like. This IS a complaint. Redheylin ( talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Phil, Corey from the band OPOPO here. I noticed that you deleted the OPOPO(EP) page. I am wondering why you did this. The page was not created by us. We have North American distribution. We have a ton of press online, We were also just ranked #8 on chartattack.com's electronic radio charts for all of Canada. What I'm trying to get at is I feel the page was a documentation of a legitimate Canadian cultural product. Can you throw me a bone? All the best.
Corey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.69.50 ( talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for granting my request for rollback! Dillard421 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The disputes with Ashley Kennedy3 on Israel-Palestine articles have continued unabated since the warning was added to her page (and mine). Now she is libeling an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, on the al-Tantura page, because of her objection to a certain quote from an interview with him that ruins her argument. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? She has also continued her pattern of creating new articles with information lifted verbatim from a source after it is deleted from other pages as inappropriate (and probably a copyright violation). The latest article is Beit Jala reprisal raid, which I tagged for deletion (a tag that someone promptly removed). I hate to bother you, but this is getting to the point where something has to be done. Thanks.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I wondered if you'd seen my message of 17th June, asking for feedback on my first MedCab case... -- Dweller ( talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much PhilKnight :) I am assuming that you were referring to the Beit Jala reprisal raid article, which I hope to improve further. Unfortunately, it is difficult to work with so few sources, especially because I don't have full access to Benny Morris's books (only what Google Books gives). If you have the book Israel's Border Wars and could somehow let me look at pp. 214-215 (scan or digital camera maybe?), I'd be really greatful. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
. . I'm a bit too old to be moved, but I am, deeply. It's the sort of thing that takes some of the tarnish off my prior record (a metaphor, I realize, that floats to mind from Japanese, 身から出た錆). Thank you, Phil. I'll treasure this. Finest Regards Nishidani ( talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It was as per the reference from the JPost article. The Jpost used it in much the same manner as I did, to put Morris' use of Massacre/over enthusiastic military assault into perspective. Morris puts it down as over enthusiastic military assault and I and the Jpost use the quote to show the level that Morris sets the bar. Under those conditions and as Morris is being used to refute the massacre theory, the peanuts quote is relevant.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[1]. Thatcher 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I am the mediator of the Lynn Conway dispute. Since you fully protected the page, I thought I would drop you and Dreadstar (the admin who initially protected the page) a note to let you know that the two editors in question recently reached an agreement to not edit the "controversy" section of this article and other related articles. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For some inexplicable reason, the discussion of the block of User:Giovanni33 is occurring in two places, on his Talk: page, and on AN/I. Since you have commented in one please, I thought you might want to comment in the other: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Giovanni33. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I was hoping to get your advice on a current editing dispute with the Kaplan, Inc. entry page [ [2]]. Some concerns have been raised about the fact that I am a Kaplan staffer and removed information that I listed as unsourced and speculative. Would you mind taking a look at the history of the edits and give some advice on how this should be handled? Although I work for Kaplan, I have a great deal of respect for the Wiki community and want to be compliant with all content policies - which is why I created a discussion as soon as I removed the information, citing all reasons why I thought this was a reasonable course of action. The editor who reversed my changes didn't seem to find fault with my reasoning, only with the fact that I am a Kaplan employee. I only want to ensure that inaccurate information is not posted on the site. Any advice you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks much - krb2182 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello PhilKnight! How are you? Can you please close my RfA? I am withdrawing my nomination. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I believe that some of them were good faith oppose. It is clear that my RfA will not pass. I don't want to waste my time. In future, I will take care about the concerns raised by editors and apply again after sometime. I don't have any regrets. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i just spent 10 days without being logged into wikipedia and see that in the meantime you deleted a page i spent many hours to create.
The deletion log says: "21:04, 23 June 2008 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted " A Gate Through Bloodstained Mirrors" (Expired PROD, concern was: reason non-notable vanity album)"
I have to believe that you didn't reed farther than the first few lines of the article and then pressed "delete". Indeed that album was first released as a self-produced demo that wouldn't have met notability guideline. BUT it was reissued 3 times by official record labels in 3 countries, the latest reissue being on the notorious Hydra Head Recordings, a label that has heavyweights suc as Sunn O))) or Khanate under contract. I cannot see how it wouldn't meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Please have a look at the paragraph regarding albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. (...) Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." As the article clearly stated, the album has been officially released no less than three times. The article included coverage from professional websites such as Pitchfork. So can you please explain the reasoning that made you vandalize hours of my work? Irina666 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for restoring the article. Irina666 ( talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
When deleting pages Unleashed: Straight Out the Game please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Unleashed, Straight Out the Game, thank you Dbiel ( Talk) 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How does it violate policy? It's used as specified in the non-free explaination on the image description page - to illustrate its bibliographic information. 70.51.8.148 ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
== Not a problem ==-- averagejoe ( talk) 06:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. No, it is not a problem -- your AfD reasoning is smooth and cogent. Thank you for asking! Ecoleetage ( talk) 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 13:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi PhilKnight,
I am a new user to posting on your site. I actually work for Fandango.com and noticed that the page that was created for us, Fandango (Ticket Service) had an outdated logo and information and we didn't like the title. We would prefer Fandango.com. Therefore, I went in to create a new page with updated information, but it was deleted. Can you help me update the information so that it is correct?
Thanks in advance, Jenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennyabaker ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Phil. Would it be possible to also link the Fandango (Ticket Service) page from the Fandango Dance Page, Movie Pages, Movietickets.com, Moviefone. Also, I tried to create a Fandango Fun page but that was also deleted. Can you guys create that? Thanks. Jennyabaker ( talk) 23:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I did a major rewrite of this article (as promised) and would be interested if you have any comments on it's style etc. (rather than content) as I'm new to making major edits. Thanks in advance. Dpmuk ( talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(Oops, sorry I tried to put this in the wrong place.) Re your notability/AfD concerns, see the following: http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-48,GGLJ:en&um=1&tab=wn&q=Puma+Pac&scoring=d High interest in the presidential election and the size of the Clinton faction are reasons for keeping the page. Also note that this page needs edit-warring protection due to its political nature. Thanks for your new user welcome message but I will be a very very very part-time participant so no adoptive parents needed just yet. Ninasimonejr ( talk) 04:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Would you be willing to review the block of NewCiaraFan09? The user was blocked for a personal attack on me. I am willing to overlook the attack, which was a pretty lame attempt at an attack, actually, and begin fresh with this user. Thanks! -- InDeBiz1 ( talk) 07:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
why did u revert my edit the information i posted about the unaired pilot was correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.43.66 ( talk) 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you tagged the article I created as vandalism. I just wanted to stop in and let you know that it was not intended to be. The meme actually exists, and I was attempting to create an entry on it, but was going to use that as a temporary page. If you would like, I can link some other wiki-esque encyclopedia to you that have entries on this meme. Even then, on the main redirection page for 'Gar', there is a link to the now unused meme definition. Would you like to help me? -- Tarage ( talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello PhilKnight, I've come across a whole "series" of articles that I feel could qualify for deletion. This the Etiquette in <Continent> series, such as Etiquette in Europe (there is a list of links from the general Etiquette article - even Etiquette Worldwide).
However, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and before doing a blanket nomination of almost 10 pages I'd like some feedback from a more experienced editor.
The reason why I feel that this type of article should not be there, because:
If you take out the unencyclopaedic content, not much will remain. The remaining useful content would IMHO much better integrated into each country's 'culture' section or other specialised articles. That would completely eliminate the need for those pages.
Unfortunately, there's no real discussion on the articles itself. It seems that people just browse by, drop a "fact" from personal experience and move on. The only rationale to keep the article (in the case of Europe) was "it's interesting".
However, I'm quite sure that if they are put up for deletion, someone will complain...
Averell ( talk) 08:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a speed response to the request for protection, which is appreciated. It is cool to use your powers like this :) What is really strange is I remember seeing something at the top of the page saying 'semiprotected' or something, but then when I looked for it again I couldn't find it, was imagining it or just overlooking the disclaimer the second go round? Tyciol ( talk) 15:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason: "You were blocked for engaging in a high speed revert war over a {{ POV}} tag. In future, please be more careful to establish consensus on the talk page or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an revert war. — PhilKnight (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)"
MastCell clearly took sides from the very beginning at Fringe Theories Noticeboard: "I'm sympathetic to you on the content issue, and Redheylin is clearly out of line there" and he continued with his personal criticisms of Reich, which were not up for discussion. His actions were in support of disruptive editing of a page he personally did not like. This IS a complaint. Redheylin ( talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Phil, Corey from the band OPOPO here. I noticed that you deleted the OPOPO(EP) page. I am wondering why you did this. The page was not created by us. We have North American distribution. We have a ton of press online, We were also just ranked #8 on chartattack.com's electronic radio charts for all of Canada. What I'm trying to get at is I feel the page was a documentation of a legitimate Canadian cultural product. Can you throw me a bone? All the best.
Corey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.69.50 ( talk) 18:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for granting my request for rollback! Dillard421 ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The disputes with Ashley Kennedy3 on Israel-Palestine articles have continued unabated since the warning was added to her page (and mine). Now she is libeling an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, on the al-Tantura page, because of her objection to a certain quote from an interview with him that ruins her argument. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? She has also continued her pattern of creating new articles with information lifted verbatim from a source after it is deleted from other pages as inappropriate (and probably a copyright violation). The latest article is Beit Jala reprisal raid, which I tagged for deletion (a tag that someone promptly removed). I hate to bother you, but this is getting to the point where something has to be done. Thanks.-- Gilabrand ( talk) 13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I wondered if you'd seen my message of 17th June, asking for feedback on my first MedCab case... -- Dweller ( talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much PhilKnight :) I am assuming that you were referring to the Beit Jala reprisal raid article, which I hope to improve further. Unfortunately, it is difficult to work with so few sources, especially because I don't have full access to Benny Morris's books (only what Google Books gives). If you have the book Israel's Border Wars and could somehow let me look at pp. 214-215 (scan or digital camera maybe?), I'd be really greatful. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
. . I'm a bit too old to be moved, but I am, deeply. It's the sort of thing that takes some of the tarnish off my prior record (a metaphor, I realize, that floats to mind from Japanese, 身から出た錆). Thank you, Phil. I'll treasure this. Finest Regards Nishidani ( talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It was as per the reference from the JPost article. The Jpost used it in much the same manner as I did, to put Morris' use of Massacre/over enthusiastic military assault into perspective. Morris puts it down as over enthusiastic military assault and I and the Jpost use the quote to show the level that Morris sets the bar. Under those conditions and as Morris is being used to refute the massacre theory, the peanuts quote is relevant.... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 17:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
[1]. Thatcher 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I am the mediator of the Lynn Conway dispute. Since you fully protected the page, I thought I would drop you and Dreadstar (the admin who initially protected the page) a note to let you know that the two editors in question recently reached an agreement to not edit the "controversy" section of this article and other related articles. BrownHornet21 ( talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For some inexplicable reason, the discussion of the block of User:Giovanni33 is occurring in two places, on his Talk: page, and on AN/I. Since you have commented in one please, I thought you might want to comment in the other: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Giovanni33. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I was hoping to get your advice on a current editing dispute with the Kaplan, Inc. entry page [ [2]]. Some concerns have been raised about the fact that I am a Kaplan staffer and removed information that I listed as unsourced and speculative. Would you mind taking a look at the history of the edits and give some advice on how this should be handled? Although I work for Kaplan, I have a great deal of respect for the Wiki community and want to be compliant with all content policies - which is why I created a discussion as soon as I removed the information, citing all reasons why I thought this was a reasonable course of action. The editor who reversed my changes didn't seem to find fault with my reasoning, only with the fact that I am a Kaplan employee. I only want to ensure that inaccurate information is not posted on the site. Any advice you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks much - krb2182 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello PhilKnight! How are you? Can you please close my RfA? I am withdrawing my nomination. Most editors who opposed my RfA expressed that I need to argue better in AfDs. I believe that some of them were good faith oppose. It is clear that my RfA will not pass. I don't want to waste my time. In future, I will take care about the concerns raised by editors and apply again after sometime. I don't have any regrets. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i just spent 10 days without being logged into wikipedia and see that in the meantime you deleted a page i spent many hours to create.
The deletion log says: "21:04, 23 June 2008 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs) deleted " A Gate Through Bloodstained Mirrors" (Expired PROD, concern was: reason non-notable vanity album)"
I have to believe that you didn't reed farther than the first few lines of the article and then pressed "delete". Indeed that album was first released as a self-produced demo that wouldn't have met notability guideline. BUT it was reissued 3 times by official record labels in 3 countries, the latest reissue being on the notorious Hydra Head Recordings, a label that has heavyweights suc as Sunn O))) or Khanate under contract. I cannot see how it wouldn't meet the notability guidelines of wikipedia. Please have a look at the paragraph regarding albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. (...) Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." As the article clearly stated, the album has been officially released no less than three times. The article included coverage from professional websites such as Pitchfork. So can you please explain the reasoning that made you vandalize hours of my work? Irina666 ( talk) 21:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for restoring the article. Irina666 ( talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
When deleting pages Unleashed: Straight Out the Game please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Unleashed, Straight Out the Game, thank you Dbiel ( Talk) 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How does it violate policy? It's used as specified in the non-free explaination on the image description page - to illustrate its bibliographic information. 70.51.8.148 ( talk) 04:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)