User talk:Sphilbrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page mayhem (mine, that is)[edit]

I don't know if you are aware of this, S, but my apologies anyway.

At Nigelj's page I claimed to have asked you a question. But when I said that, I had forgotten that before posting I replaced the question with a more fundamental one.

We agree that the article topic should cover the whole gamut of the current change in earth's climate (by whatever name) and not just the human component, yes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[H]ow would you feel if we dropped ACC from the first sentence so that it becomes (more or less) "Global warming, also known as climate change is the warming of the earth's blah-blah and related blah?

Specifically, S, would that change resolve that portion of your (very useful) criticisms found in the sub-thread at Talk:Global warming#first sentence ?

Thanks for additional input NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your comment. I saw the note about an unanswered question on Nigel's page, so went back to look. Didn't immediately see it, but got distracted (sorry, there's a lot going on). To answer the question, yes, dropping ACC would resolve my concern about that issue, although as you noted, it may be others who feel stronger. I'll note, hopefully in passing, that there was a suggestion that the human induced warming is more than 100% of the total. Without either accepting or rejecting that number, I'll note it doesn't matter. Many things are made up of constituents, and some of the constituents may be positive or negative contributors. One should not define the "thing" as made up of a subset of constituents, simply because that subset mat approximate 100% of the total.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, personally I stopped trying to learn about [{Attribution of climate change]] with IPCC AR4's >90% certainty/liklihood, and AR5's >95% certainty/liklihood that "most" is to blame on humans. Except for reading often that we'd be on our way to glacial period were it not for humans, I haven't attempted to learn any more details what the sources say on human/nonhuman causes. I think our main article GW can approach it that way, and point to the subarticle [{Attribution of climate change]] for more details, assuming eds more knowledable than I on that particular component are taking good care of that subarticle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming[edit]

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The timing is horrible, although it may never be good. I'm trying to do some things with templates, and either need to bite the bullet and learn Lua coding or abandon it. If I jump into learning coding, it will be a big time suck; as you know, one cannot casually discuss climate issues, or to put it differently, on can, but not effectively. I think that climate science is far more advanced than many skeptics concede, but not as advanced as some of the adherents think. There are too many moving parts, so to speak. I think this had led some to get ahead of themselves (often not actual climate scientists). When challenged on their models, they have been reticent to say how much they do not know, and leave the impression the models are better than they actually are. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the truth will eventually come out, but it will take many years. I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project,. I think they will find that their climate sensitivities were too high.
Some time in the future, we may revisit this article as it is written now, and some will look at how various editors shaped to work it. My goal is to be proud of my very limited contributions, and even if the facts turn out to be different than my best guesses, I want the article to reflect what is known at the time. It doesn't meet that standard at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Whenever you say "I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project" I'd encourage a bit more specificity; Earth's energy balance doesn't vary nearly as much as Global Mean Surface Temperature, and how fast any particular metric of temp goes up may not be as important overall as how many extra units of energy are in the system overall. As for the rest, whatever time you can offer making today's article excellent is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurston[edit]

Hi! I am editing a page about the web series Thurston

And why are you telling me?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Because you delete the page!
Ah, you mean Talk:Thurston (Webseries). That's a talk page and the article page is gone. It is routine to remove the talk page. I see now you are trying to write an article on a talk page. That's not the place for an article.
See Wikipedia:My_First_Article
By the way, I've deleted over 100 pages today, and don't memorize their names, which is why I asked. I had no idea you were inquiring about a deleted page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I restored it to Draft:Thurston (Webseries)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Economic graph[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping you can take another look at our COI discussion on the Talk page for the Economic graph article. I know you may be holding out for a third party to chime in on this one, but I'd appreciate your feedback on how I've addressed the concerns you've currently raised. One of the article's most active editors, user:Duoduoduo, has stated on their user talk page that they've left Wikipedia for good, so it's a bit of a challenge getting additional opinions here. Any attention is hugely appreciated - thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Will try to look at it soon, but have a couple items to finish first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Totally understandable. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Turns out it is now easy. Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kate Lambert email dates[edit]

The most recent email was sent from Kato yesterday, 7/20. Previous email sent 4/02. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User Prosfilaes[edit]

Has accused me of putting falsehoods or lies into an aviation template. On 4 occasions. Here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4] here[5] and here[6]. There's probably an edit or two more. It's not true. The italics and bolds were removed per consensus, reverted, and then reversed again while a new discussion was started. This editor needs something, possibly a block, to shut him or her up.

Note- I also put this up at The Rambling Man's Talk page....William 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said on the Rambling Man's page, it's hard to see in the history, since it's a template in a template, but at the time he made those changes, the template said "Accidents with more then 50 fatalities are italicized". He then removed the italics from accidents with more than 50 fatalities. I've explained this elsewhere, like on the talk page of the template, but he has been more interested in accusing me of personal attacks then listening to the complaints about content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't fully absorbed all the edits to put them in context, but I'll start with one general observation, and follow with a more specific comment about the template. My general observation is that all editors should think twice (or more) before accusing someone else of lying or even committing falsehoods. It does happen, but nine time out of ten, it turns out to be an error, a misunderstanding, an understandable difference of opinion regarding a definition, a misreading of the history, a misreading of a source, etc, and I could go on. A lie requires not just that the claim be false, but you have evidence that the editor knew it was false. This is quite rare, and inaccurate accusations simply increase the drama, and reduce the possibility of reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome. I'll change gears and talk about the template next.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that someone has decided that there is a convention for for the presentation of items in an aviation template, specifically to use non-italics for incidents with fewer than 50 deaths, and italics for 50 or more. I'll start with a question—is this distinction for the benefit of readers or editors? I assume readers, as there are better way to accomplish the goals if the intention is to help editors.
My next question is how are readers supposed to know this? User:Prosfilaes, you said, So long as this page says "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics", incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths should be shown in italics, but I do not see that language. I checked some history, in case it was recently removed. Where is it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
SP, there was this talk page discussion[7], which was judged a consensus[8] to change the templates, but another editor decided to reopen the discussion (fine. Consensus can change) but also edited the template here [9]- that's why the 50 deaths wasn't there and then was there again, and the individual yearly template[10]. Another administrator didn't think the last two steps were wise. The template has been reverted, both the format page and the individual years, while the discussion continues.
Whatever the template discussion is, Prosfilaes has made a barrage of personal attacks against me. That violates WP:CIVIL. An editors feelings about any subject don't give him a right to violate it....William 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, looking now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────William came to me with a conduct issue. However, I am not Arbcom, so I do not have to honor the wall between conduct and content. Underlying the dispute about the specific edits is the question whether a navigation template should use typographical attributes such as size, weight, or design (italics versus not-italic) to signify some attribute of the elements in the list. I've read Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which doesn't prohibit such choices as clearly as I would like, but it is not supportive, perhaps because it is so rare it hasn't been an issue. We are editors, and we need to apply editorial judgement, but we ought to try to avoid imposing judgments when they are not needed. The decision to privilege the largest number of fatalities in the year, and the decision to differently privilege fatalities over 50 is an editorial decision and ought to be avoided in a template whose principle goal is to help you navigate to related articles. We cannot, and should not always avoid the editorial decision, for example, the debate about whether List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities should be changed to 100, but that's inevitable.

It is not inevitable that we have to drag that decision to a nav template. To be sure, there are items one has to do a cut off in a nav bar, for example, {{Pennsylvania cities and mayors of 100,000 population}} has a cutoff point, but note, importantly, that they didn't decide to include more and color code or use other typographical elements to signify larger and smaller cities.

So in principle, I think we ought to avoid stylistic indicators in nav templates, but I also think this was done badly. I saw the statement that italics indicated the ones over 50, and at first, missed that the distinction had been removed. I looked at {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982}} and saw the italics in Twilight Zone tragedy. I visited the article, and was puzzled at first, because it clearly did not involve 50 fatalities. Then I realized that two of the three words were italic and not the third, but that just illustrates the challenges. If that incident were more than 50, I guess you would italicize the final word as well, or maybe only that word? Either case, it will lead to some confusion. I see that small bold is for the largest incident in the year. But when you are in an article, the current article is in bold, so you will see one in bold and one in small bold, unless you are in the article with the largest number, and I don't know which convention prevails. I hope my point is clear, that using such conventions is harder than it sounds–the message isn't to find a better convention but to eschew all.

Back to conduct. User:Prosfilaes claimed that William was reverting the coding even while the footnote still existed. I haven't checked the exact sequence but it doesn't matter. While I think William was a little quick on the trigger to implement a convention that was still in discussion, the edits were in keeping with a belief that the italics and bold did not belong. Let's not debate for the moment whether it should or should not be, one should not use a disagreement about styling and timing of changes to accuse another editor of lies and falsehoods. I get that tempers rose, but editors need to work hard, especially in those circumstances, to avoid over-wrought language.

User:Prosfilaes, if you want me to say that I wish William had waited until the RfC was closed to make changes, well, I already did, see the paragraph above, but I hope you will agree that William, who is passionate about improving aircraft articles, was attempting to improve them (even if you disagreed that his edit was an improvement) and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, attempting to introduce falsehoods into articles. I hope you will do the needful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

He may not have been trying to introduce falsehoods, but he was doing so, and when I pointed it out to him, all he did was keep on doing what he was doing. When I posted on Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982, he chose not to respond. If he wants me to focus on content, he should respond when other people are trying to have content-based discussions. I'm not fighting the big issue; I was making sure that Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982 didn't make false claims. I did not know where the footnote was from, all I knew is that it needed to go away, and I had no interest in supporting this change.
I may have used a better choice of words, but I'd like William to take the time to read edit messages for reasons besides to take offense at them. I'd also like him to let sleeping dogs lie; this issue was dead four days before he decided to use a canned template in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=618276551&oldid=617751382 to accuse me of personal attacks. I also resent getting complaints about personal attacks when someone posts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=617750639&oldid=608489003 to my talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
SP, he's still accusing me above after you made your ruling. A block is needed because this editor will not Drop the stick otherwise....William 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I did not make a "ruling". I'm just another editor, trying to help defuse a disagreement. However, User:Prosfilaes, I'm disappointed that you continue to claim that William was introducing falsehoods. Both of you have been around long enough to see what happens in disputes. It might start with a small difference of opinion, but positions get entrenched, words are used that shouldn't be used, and then each side focuses on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. William, you are so upset about the personal attack, that you saw the second clause of the opening sentence, and missed the first one. Yes, the second phrase continues the assertion, but reread the first part. As I said before a lie is not just an error but a deliberate error. Prosfilaes has conceded it wasn't intentional. Please take that as a small step in the right direction. It would have been a better step had it not been followed by the second clause, but it is some progress. Prosfilaes, you note that you commented at the template talk page and William did not respond. To the extent that you made a content comment in the body of the post, you think William should have responded, but I want you to realize that you were making statements interpreted as personal attacks. When someone is being personally attacked, it is hard to concentrate on content. You need to clear that issue first. You wanted William to notice that his edits were inconsistent with the language on the template, but instead of wording it that way you start with Don't add lies to this page. You can't seriously expect anyone to read on calmly and respond. I'm happy William did NOT respond there, as it would likely have been suboptimal. I thank William for his restraint. Prosfilaes, I think you should edit the header, as it does constitute a personal attack. If you don't I will, but it would be better coming form you.
Are the two of you old enough to remember a classic SNL sketch involving a Jane Curtin/Dan Akroyd mock debate, in which Dan opens with Jane, you ignorant slut. I don't remember what follows, but that's the point. When something that strong is used, it drowns out everything else. Prosfilaes, please note what happened. You responded to me with a couple paragraphs. William saw five words, and nothing else. I'm trying to point that you did make a concession, and you might be disappointed that it wasn't seen, but it wasn't seen because you repeated the personal attack. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
False is not a personal attack. It's a statement about content. The template, after William was done editing it, made claims that were universally agreed upon to be false. After this encounter, I have no idea how to explain to him that his edits were factually wrong without getting accused of making a personal attack. He seems still to have no idea that the template was factually incorrect.
I have changed lies to factually incorrect. I'll note that he has made no effort to change "read this[11] instead of undoing edits you don't know." on my talk page, which is why him dumping templates telling me to comment on content on my talk page is so grating.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. As I have tried to make clear, the term "lie" is a very strong word, and is a personal attack. I am happy you changed it. I hope William is as well, but I obviously cannot speak for him. --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoring AFC pages[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick, at WP:REFUND you have restored some articles for creation pages deleted under db-g13 templates. But you did not remove those speedy delete tags in every case, so I have spotted 3 that got redeleted soon after. ( I restored these again) So please if you restore a G13 deleted page, remove the tag! Then the requester will see the befit of your effort.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry about that. It is part of my intended process to do that every time. However, I obviously missed some. I wonder how hard it would be to make it part of the template placement process? I looked into auto-adding signatures, but was rebuffed. It would also be nice to auto-add a ping template, but my attempts to rewrite the templates in preparation to do that were also dashed. I confess I am a bit frustrated at the moment, that tasks best done by computers are not done, and worse, attempts to do so are discouraged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we can ping IPs. But talking about automation, it could probably be done with a java script. A similar idea to the AFC review script, but triggered by the restore page could proceed to remove the db-g13 template. They are almost always on the first line. Or perhaps an edit filter could issue a prompt as a warning that it should be done, or a different edit filter could alert some one who is deleting a page less than a day after it was restored to consider the undelete, or what I do, look for the red links on WP:REFUND Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: I started thinking about how one would write a script to access the article and remove the template, which sounded tricky. It occurred to me it would be easier and cleaner if it was an option at the restore step, but I don't see how to access that process, so I raised the question at Wikipedia:Vpt#Improve_restore_functionality. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You have asked the right question there. It has also happened to me that a page I restored gets very speedily deleted again! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I restored an image yesterday, went to remove the CSD template within 30 seconds of the restoration and it was gone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move contrary to RM result[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry but this move was contrary to Talk page discussion and close. I'm sure it was done in good faith (and suspect it was done on the basis of a misuse of template request by an editor whose User Talk is full of warnings for this kind of retitling), but can you please put back at the result of discussion? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: How very odd, I was recently burned by accepting someone's claim it was uncontroversial, so I made a point of checking this one. Must have read too quickly. Who requested it, I can't see how to tell?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. On past form I think it's this, but there may have been a template request prior/post this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Harshhussey articles[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at David Condrey's talk page.

Administrator Orlady again[edit]

File:Strand of Oaks press photo 2014.jpg[edit]

Could you explain what you did here? The file was deleted for violation of the non-free content criteria. You undeleted the file and added an OTRS tag, but the file is still listed as unfree, and if unfree, it still violates the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I received an OTRS email with permission, processed the permission tag, and failed to note that it was a NFUR. I've corrected it. Thanks for your diligence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A Request Edit[edit]

I was wondering if you could take a look at some content I put together a few weeks ago here on the McKinsey & Company page. It's actually a bit long, given that many of the books in the proposed draft have their own articles, but some of the books have been subjected to harsh criticisms that I wanted to make sure not to omit to avoid COI problems. I've asked user:Edge3 and User:Cullen328, but they both seem to be busy. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm swamped. Promised to write an article I'm working on, have some Arbcom work to do, the CSD backlog is stubbornly high, the OTRS backlog is scary and am depressed over the growth of the Request Edit backlog. Maybe this evening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I looked, but it looks to me like it requires some discussion. Will try to put some thoughts together over the weekend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: I added some comments to the talk page. Some may be strong, but that's how I feel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I looked through your notes, checked the sources and I think addressed your feedback (if not let me know). CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for putting up with me and all your help on that! Did you want to keep working on the other sections or are you all teetered out for now? I know these reviews can be a lot of work and for a large/complex article like this it is too much for any one editor to do. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I need a bit of a break. If no one else steps up, ping me at the end of the week and I'll do some more. I site I've linked to probably a thousand times reorganized their site, so I'm manually fixing the links. On a related topic, I'm discouraged about the growth in Request edits again. I thought I found the perfect solution for one, which was medical related and asked here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Edit_request_needs_some_knowledgeable_help but it isn't going well. I've handled a couple, but some are complicated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks like an open and shut case to me; it could be closed out at this point as declined. It is almost never acceptable to link to someone's personal website in a citation, especially if they are not the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally pointless, but...[edit]

This is my new favorite non-conflicting edit conflict. I'm trying to see if mediawiki reveals millisecond edit timing to see how close we came to conflicting. :) Protonk (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: The funny thing is...I got an edit conflict when I went to correct a spelling error. I was contemplating writing a highly indignant post somewhere about getting an edit conflict with oneself. I didn't consider for one second that it might be an actual edit conflict. Glad I didn't write it. Yeah, let's ask Media Wiki to change their reporting - this rounding off to whole seconds is very unprofessional.:)
As an aside, after reading that prose, I became concerned when I saw the editor had over a hundred edits, and decided, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that I need to check any edits to article space. Luckily none.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Their talk page is/was pretty bizarre. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I know we have a policy against pre-emptive blocks, and I support it, but if I were looking for an argument to change that policy, this would be it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Your edit landed 9 seconds before mine. Although nobody knows the real timing difference. :) Protonk (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The actual edit was nine seconds different. That's partly because I don't know how to do the edit conflict thing, so when I get one, I back out and try again. Plus, if I did know how to do the edit conflict thing, I don't know whether then completed edit would have the original time or the final time. That's without getting into the challenges of time ordering events. I didn't fully read the attachments, but I am aware that time ordering is not easy when considering events at two locations. Doesn't that problem go away if the event occurs at the same locations? Which condition seems like it applies to two editors trying to edit the same thread. (Unless we happen to be accessing two different servers? I'm not sure how that works.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Verification, creds, links[edit]

I have several books including two anthologies I edited, won two NJ State Arts Council Fellowships, one in prose and one in poetry, won the Kinereath Genseler Award for my book Panic (also a BOTYA finalist) with Alice James Books, and there are a ton of links to my work on line. A quick search pulls these up. If they need to be linked on the page, then that would be great, but calling the page into question is inappropriate as my creds are in line with many other poets' pages:

some Books and anthologies I have written or edited:

How does this get resolved? Lmccullough (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It gets resolved by an editor with enough interest in literature in general or poetry specifically, reviewing the case for notability, and if supported, making a case at the AfD. That editor will not be me, mainly because I have made commitments to other editors that I'm not delivering on.
I see that we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry, I was going to suggest you try there, but I see you already have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Sphilbrick. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Can you be my mentor on Wikipedia[edit]

Please Venustar84 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am honored that you would ask, but I'm sorry to say I must decline. I have signed up for more Wikipedia activities than I can handle, and it would be unfair to you. Have you tried Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your comment on the AE. Could you please move it to the admin "result" section so it won't be missed? I'd appreciate that. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneYou can see I don't spend much time at AE.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. And hopefully this will be my last trip there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AE Clerk's note[edit]

Callanecc noted that you were asking for a one year block is I were to violate the ban again. He's pointed out here that the maximum block for a repeat would be one month. I don't know if you saw that. Don't know if he's waiting for you to state if you're okay with that before he closes. Thanks, SW3 5DL (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about the max, I'm fine with that, my goal was to emphasize that while I can excuse a close call, I will be looking for a long block if repeated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know about it, either. Might be a good idea to post your reply above over on AE so Callanecc will see it. Thanks again for your understanding of the situation. I really appreciated that. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, things are a bit hectic - I saw your earlier note when I was cleaning up a mess and thought I was posting there. Just noticed my error and made an edit there just about the time you posted here. Let me know if you think more is needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I posted a note on Callanecc's talk page with a diff of your change so he knows and can close. Thanks for that. Much appreciated. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Redmi[edit]

Hi: I noticed that you recently deleted Redmi. The topic is actually notable per sources I added to the article, so requesting userfication to User:Northamerica1000/Redmi so I can work on the article to address promotional tone, improve it, etc. Thank you for your consideration. NorthAmerica1000 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the userfication. NorthAmerica1000 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You missed one[edit]

[60] Regards, WCMemail 16:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Will do.

I think someone must have beat me to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
[61] Today hasn't been my best, guess I lost it for a while. Feel free to remove other comments I made, with the assurance it won't be repeated and it isn't normal. Time for the pub methinks. Regards, WCMemail 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Understandable. Wish I could join you at the pub.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Misty Copeland image[edit]

Re [62]

Sorry about that. I debated whether or not to nominate it for deletion. I saw the watermark. The thing is, I figured that since the image had been around for a long time, that he's a choreographer, and has uploaded other images that appear legitimate, he probably took the photo and owned it in the first place. Plus, if he did not own it, the image would be brought into light for scrutiny and subsequent deletion, which is exactly what happened. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have to write to Copeland and Prescott and ask for an image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't ruled out the possibility that it is legitimate, but when seeing a watermark, seeing a clear copyright statement on another site hosting it, and no OTRS ticket, the starting assumption is that it is not validly licensed. It's a nice image, so I've love to hear that the intention is to provide it, but we'll need a non-watermarked version ad a permission email. (I've had good expereinces writing and asking for images. Far from 100%, but a decent hit ratio.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
That's reasonable. I couldn't find it on the net. A lot of sites are blocked here in China, so copyvio searches are often difficult. But I have tagged and bagged around 750 commons copyvio files so far.
I've just written to Prescott and Copeland for images. Fingers crossed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Same here --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to you[edit]

Hi. You've left a note for me (somewhere) which I cannot find. Can I be of any help in some capacity? Beebuk 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Beebuk I was just thanking you for an edit. I'm happy to see you still contributing. I have fond memories of helping you in your early editing days. We need more like you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I'm still plugging away--but I regret to say that I'm no closer to "de-listifying" the Pierrot page than I was when we last corresponded. Here in Bangkok I just don't have the resources; even in the U.S. good libraries are far from our little burg on the Ohio. And it's such a difficult thing to do! But I feel that it's something I'll have to apply myself to, eventually. Beebuk 10:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Any problems with a REFUND?[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. While I was at Wikimania over the weekend, I got chatting to a user, User:Dthomsen8 who was unhappy with a few G5 deletions that you made. I did explain the reasoning behind them and I do believe he understands why we need to do G5 deletions as a disincentive for banned users. That said, he's willing to work on the articles if I put them into his userspace.

So, to get to specifics, the articles in question are Cherry Street (Philadelphia), Locust Street (Philadelphia), Pine Street (Philadelphia), Race Street (Philadelphia), Snyder Avenue and Spruce Street (Philadelphia). They were all created by D62943, who I'm pretty unfamiliar with.

Generally, I'm happy with REFUNDing pretty much anything to userspace, beside obvious problems such as copyvios and attack pages etc. Dthomsen8 should be able to then create the articles. My understanding is that he's happy to create the content of the article, he'd just like to re-use the layout, images and templates - and I expect these will help him out. I'm happy to do the REFUND, but wanted to check you didn't have any problems first. WormTT(talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Short answer, go for it. I'm teaching a class, so I'll elaborate later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Worm That Turned: Class is over, so I'll expand. I'm not the biggest fan of DENY. I want to build an encyclopedia, so throwing away decent content grates. However, I accept that editors can become a net negative, to the point that we, as a community, make the decision that the editor should not contribute, and we BAN them. So what happens if they create a sock, and create some content that, had it been created by anyone else, would be acceptable? Throwing it away is throwing away good content, but accepting it means we don't really mean they are BANNED. A ban has no meaning if they can continue to contribute. So I accept that we need to do something with content created by a banned user and that action is to delete it.

So what should we do as a community if banned Editor A creates Article X, it gets deleted, and editor B, in good standing, asks for a copy of the deleted material so they can recreate an article? My first reaction is to be cautious, because while I do a lot in the copyright area, there are still some areas where I am not fully comfortable I know the rules, and this is one of them. which is why I am pinging User:moonriddengirl.

When Banned user A created Article X, their edit itself provides a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, which means we can freely use it, but we must give proper attribution. I think that means if editor B is given a copy of the (now-deleted) material, concludes it is fine, and creates an article with no further changes, we have a problem, because that material will be attributed to Editor B, not Editor A. Even if not a legal problem it is at least an ethical problem. However, here is what I think is acceptable: when Editor B asks me to provide a copy of the deleted material, I think I am on solid grounds to provide it. I want them to use the references, glance at the text, but rewrite the text in their own words. If that happens I think we are on solid ground. My concern is what to do if Editor B rewrites the text slightly, so it constitutes a close paraphrase of the original, and posts it as a new article. CSBot won't pick it up, because CSBot doesn't compare new articles against deleted articles. A new page patroller is unlikely to pick it up, because they won’t know what to look for, and don’t have the tools to look even if they knew where to look. I think it means that the admin providing the deleted content has to shoulder the responsibility of looking at the new article, and ensuring that it is not a close paraphrase.

That was my plan. Dthomsen8 asked me for copies of all the deleted material, and my offer was to provide one, with the intention of looking at the resulting article to make sure it didn't violate close paraphrase, and if fine to provide more copies. User:Dthomsen8 asked me for a few, I provided Race Street (Philadelphia) with an intention of reviewing it when created, but never heard back. It is a red link, so hasn't been created, unless it was created as a different name, but I've had no contact from Dthomsen8 regarding any next steps. Thinking further, I'm concerned about my advice to provide the copies. We either need some confirmation from Moonriddengirl that recreation is fine even if it is a close paraphrase of the deleted material, or we need a process to check for such issues and the only viable process I can image is that the admin providing the material accepts the responsibility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed reply - hopefully I can address your concerns, though I'm certainly interested in a second opinion from Maggie if she appears! Philosophically, I'm not a great fan of G5 deletions - as you say, removing good content from the encyclopedia grates with me too, especially just because the person who wrote it had become persona non grata. We need to remove problematic behaviours from Wikipedia, not people - and if the person can come back without the problematic behaviour, then they should be welcomed with open arms. That's the basis of my essay on the quiet return.

So, let's look at a situation where a person has been banned and without discussing the merits thereof (I believe D62943 is de facto banned, I can't find any ban discussion, but his excessive socking would make it very unlikely that an admin would overturn) - we do need some sort of disincentive to stop them editing. If they're focussing on creating articles - absolutely those articles should be deleted, it will take away the enjoyment for the person and hopefully move them away from Wikipedia.

But if it's causing a problem for another user - I do believe we should put that user first. So if Banned user A creates 100 articles and they're all deleted, then User in Good Standing B says he wanted to expand 5 of them, then they should absolutely be undeleted. I don't think you have a problem with that point of view. That leaves the question of how to proceed.

We can work in two ways. Firstly, a straight undeletion to user space where the article is expanded until it is substantially different and moved to the article space - this will mean editing history is in tact, the banned user will get the credit for creating the article, but there are absolutely no copyright violations or possible close paraphrasing issues. This is my preferred solution. Secondly, undelete the article to user space, allowing the User in Good Standing to create the similar article. They must be careful to not re-use anything that would violate copyright or plagiarise the original, so for example, using the same layout and templates should not be a violation as they match Wikipedia's in house style and should not be considered as taking enough "sweat of the brow" to create. Beyond that, it gets complex - are adding the same images plagiarism? What about the same sources? How much can you write about a street that doesn't match the original? It certainly makes my head hurt - that's why the first is my preferred solution, it's definitely the best way forward. WormTT(talk) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm prepping to teach another (all-day) class today, will respond in more detail this evening. I mostly agree, with some concerns. will elaborate tonight. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned:Some further thoughts—while I am sympathetic to your suggested approach, it appears to conflict with Wikipedia:Banning policy That does not mean case closed, but it does mean that you and I cannot just agree on what to do and do it, we need to address the policy. This is clearly not the right place to modify policy. Before jumping to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) I'm think that a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) may be warranted (I think one should go directly to VPP if you have a clear, thought out proposed change, than can be enacted or rejected, with possibly minor word smithing. I don;t think we are there yet.)
It would be useful to start something, then get some community input with an RfC. For example,you and I have talked about one aspect of banning policy, but have you seen the kerfuffle on Jimbo's page over whether editors other than Jimbo can remove banned editors posts summarily, even thought Jimbo sometimes engages? That would be worth discussing. ON a related issue, did you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Russavia_disruption.2C_requesting_multiple_article_protection. Long, intense discussion about the same issue. This isn't a coatrack, all three have the same central topic - how should the community respond when a banned editor edits?
If I write up a summary, will you follow to VPI, or do you have a better idea?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fairly in depth for a small issue. As I said, this chap is blocked, not banned - perhaps de facto banned at best. There has not been a community discussion on his edits - or has there been and I've missed it? You are right, there's a massive issue at the heart of this - how do we ban a user on an anonymous encyclopedia, but there's no way I'm waiting around for that to get fixed! WormTT(talk) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry missed that. Will revisit my thoughts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned:As I said, I didn't realize the editor was blocked, rather than banned. Per block log, the issue was edit warring, which of course is serious, but in this context, good news. If the block had been for violation of copyright rules, then we would want to take extra care when looking at a deleted page to make sure there are no copyright issues. That doesn't appear to be the case, so I am fine with your approach. Restoring to a user space does preserve the editing history, and avoids my copyright question, although I suspect there are some editors who would elevate DENY to the point they would object, so we have to be prepared to have that conversation. Re-use of the same images? I see almost no issues. Maybe if the images were arranged on the page in a way that could be construed as artful, but that's rare, and doesn't apply to any of these situations. I feel the same about references. While one can argue there is effort in identifying references, I don't recall any copyright cases where something like this is even alleged.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I was initially concerned about copyright (that's one of my 2 reasons not to REFUND), but there's so little there that it's not worth worrying about. I'm happy to argue with anyone over DENY - I see so many blocked editors who are not worth our time, those who are actually creating content aren't as much of a concern. If anyone else gets grumpy, send them my way! In any case, I'll get on and undelete those pages and will ensure they get to a decent state before they head into article space. Thanks for taking bit of time and chatting about the issues! WormTT(talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about an article restored to userspace[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I noticed you userfied User:Tomp55/Devin Hays after a request at WP:REFUND. I am a little curious about this as it was deleted as a blatant hoax and there is no hope of this ever returning to main space as the content is complete fiction. Or, as a simpler question, would it be appropriate to delete the userfied copy for the same G3 reasoning, or should I go to MFD at this point? Thanks!Resolute 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: Sorry, I missed that it was deleted as a hoax. I even vaguely reading some of it, because I was suprised to read that the NCAA does not allow overlapping sports. I know my wife played overlapping sports, but that was pre-NCAA. I fear I may have gotten lost down memory lane and missed the elephant in the room. There should be no need to go full MfD. Option 1. I move it back into main space, and tell editor I made a mistake, then one of us deletes as hoax. Option 2, if you have a better idea, but let's not go MfD.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
With my hockey background, that aspect of the hoax was pretty obvious - he claimed to have played at age 26 in a junior league with an age cap of 20. Among other things - including the copyvio images that were deleted from Commons. It was amusing, at least! As for deletion, I'd say then to simply delete the user copy. No sense getting bureaucratic unnecessarily, I think. Simple errors should only require simple solutions. Cheers! Resolute 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Resolute 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:CSK VVS Samara (women's football club) players[edit]

Hi, you deleted this category as a C1 when it wasn't empty. Please restore, thank you. Målfarlig! (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Målfarlig!: Sorry about that, I'm usually good at checking for that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Life[edit]

Its your parents and siblins considered early life just asking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilk846 (talkcontribs) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry what? @Lilk846:--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Is parents and siblings considered early life in a person bio just asking Lilk846 13:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, that would be my assumption. One isn't required to have an "Early life" section, but I tend to use them, and that would go there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you just wondering 13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilk846 (talkcontribs)

Pierre de Coubertin & Luz Long[edit]

Yes, it's been a while since I made those edits. I'll try to wrack my brain for the details. :-)

I first read about Lutz Long awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal in a book about Olympic spirit and sportsmanship whose title I don't recall (it also included information of such athletes as Derek Redmond and Shun Fujimoto) back in 2001 or so, and when I came upon the article on Wikipedia, I drew upon what I remembered reading to expand his article.

My edits that he was awarded the medal posthumously comes from deduction and logic: The Pierre de Coubertin medal was introduced in 1964, but Long died in 1943, so he could only have been awarded the medal posthumously.

At the time, I didn't have sources that Lutz Long was actually awarded the medal, but IIRC, the existing Wikipedia articles already stated this. There are several sourced publications out there that state his award. Doing a search, I found some online sources, including [63] and some Google Books search results: [64], [65]

Hope this helps, and I'm glad to see a relative of Luz Long taking an interest in articles to which I provided a small contribution. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I will pass it along to the person working on the book. I had passed on the Scrivener article, but the others are new to me. They have been unable to confirm it, and, not surprisingly, some of the more recent sources that state it picked it up from Wikipedia, so I'll check out to see if any predate us.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Many thanks for taking the plunge (and the time) on this. Iztwoz (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An annoying request for you[edit]

Since you just deleted the userpage I moved it from, can you delete this revision and the (18) older ones on 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France)? I forgot I had used that userpage before drafting the article; it'll confuse anyone looking through the history of the new article, and I don't need to save any of those old edits. Much appreciated, —innotata 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying but I'm missing something--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! —innotata 01:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User Lactasamir[edit]

I see you posted to User talk:Lactasamir as did I in the past. However, I think that this is a hopeless case. I'm about to raise a CCI after finding him adding more copyvio today. He also has ignored requests to cite properly and he seems to have no judgement about sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm in day one of 2 all day meetings, so will check back Thursday.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Danube Valley Cultures[edit]

Hello friend :) it seems that I need to work of my copyright abilities I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone by using copyrighted material. History is my passion and sometimes I lose track of all the things I want to share with Wikipedia. I now understand how important the copyright rules are, and I would do anything to make Wikipedia satisfied. I am pleading for the return of the article Danube Valley Cultures. Is there any way I could edit the deleted article. And make everything wrong right again. My greatest wish is to get a second change to edit what has been deleted and to make sure anything copyrighted are treated the right way. The article about the Danube Valley Cultures are a very important piece of tool to understanding the entire Neolithic Balkans.Lactasamir (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see response to message above this one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) I can promise you that from now on there will be no more copyvio or bare urls. From now on i will make sure to follow Wikipedia rules. I know this is not the place to bring it up, but i need so make it clear that i am disabled and therefore i have difficulties when it comes to do the same thing as "normal" people. Editing on Wikipedia is one of the things that brings joy to my life, i feel that i can contribute i some small way to the society. So when i edit in Wikipedia it takes a lot of strenght and therefore i have a tendency to copyvio or make bare urls because i will take me very long time to write the edit i my own words. But from now on i will only make edits with the help from one of my family members so it will be done correctly. Have a nice day. :) Lactasamir (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, i promise to go back in my edits and remove bare urls and make sure that the correct information about the linked page. This will take some time but slowly i will make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactasamir (talkcontribs) 16:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I came across the above article whilst perusing the DYK talk page. I haven't done a full review but have noted both at the DYK template and at Talk:USA Women's 3x3 Teams that I think there be an issue or three with the article name. Of course I could be talking absolute nonsense but you may want to take a look at it. Cheers - Basement12 (T.C) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)