Misplaced Pages

User talk:PhilKnight: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:05, 28 August 2006 editPotters house (talk | contribs)1,284 edits →CSICOP← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025 edit undoCactusisme (talk | contribs)99 edits →Hello!!!: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/archivelist}}
{{archive box|
__TOC__
* ]
{{clear}}
* ]}}




==Juan Martin== == You missed ==


… the master of {{noping|Abu4real1995}}: {{noping|Joseph4real1995}}. Best, ] 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi - i have decided to continue with my edits for Juan Martin - any facts that i include into the artist will be citable. I ask in the interests of good natured writing,that you simply dont delete what you feel is incorrect, my information about Juan martins texhnique for instance comes from many books and articles.] 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


: No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. ] (]) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
==Thanks==
::Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, ] 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the ] page. I was going through the tit for tat thing for ages and saw no hope in sight. You seemed to be the only person willing to help and I appreciate it. Nick ] 06:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
::: I have re-blocked them. ] (]) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


== ''Family Guy'' == == Assistance ==


"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding ] achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me ] ]. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." ] (]) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome. So, do you have an opinion on ]? ] 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


:@] As I had reply to ] at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have ] and ] to start 2025. On '']'', ] that removed "{{tq|Material that fails verification be removed}}" per ] with "{{tq|WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH}}" in the edit summary however so lovely we have ] that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "{{tq|WP:BITE WP:FAITH}}"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for ''Lovely Runner'' either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On ], believed to be related to ] which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to ] reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the ]. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per ] and didn't requires ]. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the ] violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> 🎉🎆 ] 🎆🎉 <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Margana ==


::: I agree with Aoidh's . ] (]) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I will ask em. --]<sup>(])</sup> 05:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


==]==
== MedCab ==
Hello, PhilKnight,


I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I see that you're active at quite a few pages that are in the active caseload. Does this mean that you've joined us in our pursuits? Let me know. ] 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
:I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits. ==
Yes, I'm planning to join the cabal (not that it exists) after I get some more experience. I've only been editing for two months and lack understanding of many procedures. For example, if I had taken the ] case, at the start I wouldn't have realised the advice in ] states the description terrorist shouldn't be used. Also, if I had more experience, I would have a better appreciation regarding the consensus of what separates reliable from unreliable sources that was the central issue of ]. Hopefully, my editing doesn't get in the way... ] 17:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
== CSICOP ==
Thanks Adhoc. I added some comments to the CSICOP talk page explaining my corrections. I also restored my corrections, which Davkal deleted. I think you noticed that my factual corrections (and addition) are not involved in the material being mediated. Nevertheless, Davkal deleted them, incorrectly claiming that I had agreed not to correct anything in the article. Hardly. I was particularly amused by his statement that he removed my "claim" about what the Robert P. Balles 2005 Prize was awarded. No, I inserted a fact that's clearly in the Skeptical Inquirer source that was cited. And then he suggests that if the information must be included, a very derogatory opinion must be included with it. Who is '''''this''''' guy?


: You should use the talk page - ] - to establish ], and not ]. ] (]) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I haven't participated much in the CSICOP mediation to date because I have almost no knowledge of the dispute involving the Mars effect. I prefer to leave arguing out of ignorance to the woo-woos.] 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
::Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. ] (]) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


==Johnny Lee Clary== == Hello!!! ==

I have been working on the Johnny Lee Clary article for a while now. It was deleted a while back (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Johnny_Lee_Clary) and I felt that it need to be revised. I have made a draft http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Potters_house/Johnny_Lee_Clary#See_also and have also worked on ] and made ]. If you have any imput or suggestions it would be appriciated. Oh and by the way I don't watch much TV and have only ever seen half an episode of family guy (seriously), thus why I can't really comment. ] 08:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

: Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at ]. ] (]) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Alright, thanks!! ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::How about the bot? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" ] (]) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] Archiving bot ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. ] (]) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Anyone you know who uses it? ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: Looking at ] {{u|Rosguill}} uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. ] (]) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::ok ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:35, 3 January 2025

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

edit


You missed

… the master of Abu4real1995: Joseph4real1995. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, after the unblock request was accepted, they’ve gone to nominate articles that I created (possibly because I filed the SPI). I don’t think that that sort of editing is considered as good-faith editing; it is disruptive at best. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance

"I am writing to request assistance regarding recent edits to the "Lovely Runner" article. editor Paper90ll has repeatedly removed information regarding Lovely Runner achievment at the Asia Artist Awards. Despite these reversions, the user continued to rollback the changes and tagging me Ultraviolet Rollback. I would appreciate guidance on how to resolve this ongoing dispute and ensure that the article accurately reflects the subject matter." Puchicatos (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight As I had reply to Aoidh at their talk page on the same cross-posted topic. It's truly lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "Material that fails verification be removed" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE WP:FAITH"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Misplaced Pages's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? I would pretty much like you as an administrator to give me an reasonable explanation on such behaviour otherwise this behaviour would continue by going around administrator's talk page and cross-posting the same topic. — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

Hello, PhilKnight,

I saw that you closed this SPI case but the main sockmaster, Tuwintuwin, wasn't blocked at all. Was this an oversight? Just wondering as I've run into their editing this evening. Liz 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Arjayay and DH85868993 keeps reverting my edits.

Hello. First of all, I wanted to say I'm really sorry for my wrongdoings. Second, the two users keep reverting my edits for "Nurburgring". I put the correct info for the Nordscheliefe section, but the two keep reverting it. Click this link and you will see that my info is correct: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsLi7HgSuhI Anyway, please stop them from putting wrong data. Thank you, and again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello!!!

I was wondering how to archive stuff? And can you also mentor me as en wiki is different from simple en wiki? Cactus🌵 08:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Cactusisme, you seem to have figured out how to archive stuff based on your user talk page. I don't mentor users, I suggest you find someone at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
How about the bot? Cactus🌵 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters Rosguill uses archivebot and is currently accepting adoptees. You could try them. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
ok Cactus🌵 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)