User talk:PhilKnight

; 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123
	edit

IP block lengths

Hello there! I noticed that there isn't an expiry set for this block against this IP. This page says that IPs shouldn't be blocked indef as IPs in most cases are dynamically assigned, the (length of said) block in question is most likely in error. -Genius Workbench 4622 23:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable evaluation of a Unblock request

Respectfully, the decline seems to focus on a single sentence rather than the substance of my full unblock request. While I acknowledge that my phrasing about the burden of consensus could have been clearer, the rest of my appeal detailed policy-backed reasons for my edits (WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, WP:GEOGRAPHY, WP:AGF) and my efforts to resolve the dispute through talk page discussion.

The content in question was verifiable, relevant, and already present in the article before being removed without policy-based justification. I paused further edits, moved to discussion, and cited policies to support collaboration. None of these points were addressed in the decline, which instead centered on one misinterpreted line to dismiss the entire rationale. I have noticed this site tends to be selective of when and how policy is applied , you being a moderator and saying "flat out wrong" as a response is no better than the "seasoned editors" that started an edit war with good faith content across multiple pages ,

Direct response to yours : While good-faith, verifiable content can be added or restored without prior consensus under WP:BRD, once challenged, all editors not just those seeking to remove it share the responsibility to engage in discussion and reach consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Selectively removing such content without citing core policies undermines collaborative editing and violates the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. I am not going back and forth with anyone on this website as I am making my own that can actually be sourced in text / verifiable. My edits and I will be out of your hair, thanks for understanding ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicalLeaf129 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi. I saw you blocked user:KimRealOfficial for block evasion. It looks like they are using an IP to make logged-out edits. See [1] vs [2]. Not sure the right place to report, etc, so thought I'd ping you here. meamemg (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi meamemg, thanks, blocked for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PhilKnight. Seems to be at it again via @Superpower9 account. See [3]. (And let me know if there is a better place to raise this than your talk page). meamemg (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi meamemg, thanks, blocked. My talk page is fine for these. If I'm not around, then I suggest you use WP:SPI. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

User_talk:142.126.246.144 —tony 03:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. PhilKnight (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 24.158.78.21

Hi PhilKnight, you blocked this ip in 2023 for misuse of talk pages, and you might like to know that they are active again, posting odd comments that aren't related to the articles. Special:Contributions/24.158.78.21 Dialectric (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll leave a warning. Not convinced a block is required just yet. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LepYd258#ANI

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reez95

similar pattern, lack of grammar skills, refusal of communication, bad edits when its mistakes are corrected, please if any action possible 93.140.95.182 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ip vandalism on Milliken Mills High School

This is a mobile edit so sorry if I messed anything up on your user page. The IP who has previously candalises the infobox has done it again. could you block them or send em a warning, thanks! 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 22:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry the house

Up to his old tricks here. Would you do the honours? Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked for a year. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And here. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:73.228.195.198

Hi. I saw your post on User_talk:73.228.195.198. This editor made a bunch of changes to element pages which I reverted twice now. I see they made similar changes to other element pages. I believe the editor wants to improve the page and thinks they are Doing the Right Thing. However they are removing references without explanation so I don't know what to do other than revert the change. Any suggestions? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted warnings on their Talk page but these were also reverted). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I have the right to remove warnings from my talk page, especially when they are placed as a substitute for discussion by someone that admittedly believes I am acting in good faith. I honestly believe that you found what I was doing unobjectionable and the removal of sources Johnjbarton complains of is the same sort I was doing at that time. His reverting my changes in their entirety with no other explanation is impeding my continuing effort to update and improve the isotope data on Wikipedia. It is a big job that no one else is helping with right now, and I will not get everything perfect and expect to be edited by people that honestly disagree with my judgements - but not reverted completely and without reasonable discussion.

It is not reasonably possible here, nor is it required by policy, that I discuss every such edit before making it. I should add that I am aware the thing I must not do is leaving content unsourced that previously was sourced, and I have not consciously done so (except when I've checked the source and it doesn't support the claim). The only questionable way I apply it is to consider the one reference to Nubase2020 on each page to serve for the whole page, and not require it to be repeated for individual statements, applying the same standard to the element pages as to the isotopes pages. This could be disputed and perhaps I could (as I have for decay chains) attach a citation to the section heading as an alternative way to avoid its excessive repetition and still maintain consistency. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 73.228.195.198 is now leaving better edit summaries which hopefully should avoid these misunderstandings. I think this discussion should be somewhere else other than my talk page, possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. PhilKnight (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather it were, actually, and I will post a notice. But such is not likely to receive replies immediately, and is read only by those already interested in the subject, so it is not a complete solution to these problems, though (as you are only one of very many Wikipedia admins) I could not expect you to provide one. I would request, though, that you answer the implied question in my post about whether it is appropriate to use a 'general reference' to Nubase (once per page or section) and where that might be placed - I find no policy stating whether citations in section headings are allowed, but someone just reverted me for doing that. There is already (or should be) one reference on each element page, generated from the infobox. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:F1A7 (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings it says "For technical reasons, section headings should:" "Not contain citations or footnotes." A general reference to Nubase appears to be the status quo solution. It's possible someone could object to that, but it has its advantages. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I will not create such section headings in the future. By the way, _I_ posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements first and Johnjbarton (as I expected) jumped in immediately. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:F1A7 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I object to any special handling of citations in any page without consensus. I have opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L2: Empuraan (soundtrack)

Hey, can you revert the edits by user AnbareeV to this version. They have been making a lot of mess. Also, can you protect the page? Thank you. HeisenberG (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HeisenberG: - I suggest you establish consensus at Talk:L2: Empuraan (soundtrack) for your preferred version. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That user vandalised the page and it is hard for normal users like me to revert all of those. That is why I requested you. User Fragrant Peony initially reverted the mess made by Anbareev. But they are still doing the same thing, adding the exact same content. HeisenberG (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request broader rangeblock

Thanks for your prompt handling of the G.-M. Cupertino BE on 109.51.130.78! I probably should have filed at AIV with the broader 109.51.128.0/18 range, which seems to be exclusively used by our disruptive editor, with use extending back long enough that I think a multi-month block might be appropriate. If you agree, I'd greatly appreciate your help there. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pbritti, I have blocked the range for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Molto bene! Thank you. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we edit conflicted and it looks like my 2-month block overwrote your 3-month block. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]