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
	edit

You missed

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

No, I blocked the account, and then unblocked it following an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have re-blocked them. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 [and not assuming] 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

I agree with Aoidh's comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that they were indefinitely blocked but were unblocked only 3 days later! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1]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)[reply]

You should use the talk page - Talk:Nürburgring - to establish consensus, and not edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you. And again, I'm sorry. 2603:8000:99F0:93A0:9932:FB79:1D30:444B (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!!!

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

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 Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. PhilKnight (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks!! Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about the bot? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand the question "How about the bot?" PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Archiving bot Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used an archiving bot, so I am not the right person to ask. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone you know who uses it? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

ok Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]