User talk:Sphilbrick

FYI I'll be in a class until Thursday, with limited, if any internet time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Krugman - influenced by, yet again

If you followed the subject closely, you'd know: there is nothing controversial about whether Solow et al. were significant influences on Paul Krugman. And simply deleting significant facts about a person from their WP bio is not, as you claim "improving" those articles. The Economic Views section of this bio has been tagged for expansion for a long time. For some reason, it's been up to me to do most of that expansion. (Oddly, it seems that an awful lot of the grunt work on his actual positions in economics has been left to me.) Yes, it requires effort. But I Don't Wanna Do the Work is not an acceptable excuse for deleting uncontroversial facts from an article.

By the way: if WP:PRESERVE dates from 2001, well, that might be called "withstanding the test of time."

Exercise for you (if you're actually willing to do some real work on an article about a subject you apparently know little about): verify Joseph Stiglitz's degree of influence on Paul Krugman's career. Here, let me get you started: [1]. You might want to add Dixit while you're at it. Without the grounding they provided, perhaps he would not have contributed much in one of three areas of economics cited by the Nobel committee in awarding him the prize -- and thus might not have won the Nobel (or for that matter the harder-to-get Bates medal in econ before that.) Yakushima (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exercise for you (if you're actually willing to do some real work on an article about a subject you apparently know little about)

One of the desires of the Wikipedia community is that editors discuss issues, even vigorously, but avoid characterizing other editors. Even if the observation was true, you ought not to make it, but you don't have any evidence to support the claim. I haven't edited this article enough for you to have a coherent position on my understanding of the subject matter, and I'll bet you haven't scoured my edit history on other articles, if only because that would not support the claim either. So let's start, if we can, by discussing the merits of the argument for inclusion or exclusion, and eschew the personal comments, which are unlikely to lead to anything productive. Deal?

On the merits, I fear you have missed the point. I don't believe I have stated anywhere that Solow et al are or are not significant influences on Krugman. So saying it isn't controversial is a strawman, it isn't the issue.

My point is narrow, but so far, unchallenged. We have extensive policies, guidelines and practice to help us determine whether inclusion of the influence of economist X. Y or Z on Krugman deserves to be in the article. I won't cite, because I'm sure you know, the policies on weight and referencing inter alia. Writing a few sentences on paragraphs on economists with influence on Krugman is not trivial, nor is it rocket science. However, the point is, that it hadn't been done. The policy is very clear. Not only that, it isn't even a controversial policy. Infoboxes are summaries of what is in the article. Therefore, if it isn't in the article it doesn't belong in the infobox.

You've essentially agreed, as you've added some text mentioning the influences. However, your key citation is not well-formed, so I hope you will revisit the article, and fix the reference, so we can then debate the merits of the inclusion.--SPhilbrickT 14:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On fixing the ref, I fixed it for you. --SPhilbrickT 14:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't broken. Take a look: [2]

Did you read your own link? Your link is to the edit where I fixed it.--SPhilbrickT 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Several times. And several times, I read "FanD" and "FandD" were identical. On more careful inspection, I see that you're right: you fixed the kind of thing I ordinarily get right. But you know what? It required of me a more careful inspection of a change that I was only making to get you off my back, since you seem to insist on a very narrow, non-commonsense interpretation of a not-very-well-written guideline (Infobox MOS) as "the rules". (While disparaging WP:PRESERVE simply because it's been around for a long time. Cherry-picking, much?) PLEASE go edit an article about baseball or something. Paul Krugman is very difficult territory (BLP, controversial figure, complex economic issues), and dealing with people with political (or in your case, bureaucratic/wikilawyering) agendas only makes what's already very difficult almost impossible. Yakushima (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I read "FanD" and "FandD" were identical. Exactly. Now you know why it took me some time to clean up your mistake, which you would have picked up immediately had you actually looked at the page in preview or after editing. I'm trying to AGF but your condescension is getting a little thick. You have no idea how many hours I have spend read Krugman's work, not just his recent NYT material but his Slate columns, his personal website and some of his Nobel winning work on International trade. Your patronizing tone is ill-founded, and anyone who thinks they can intuit someone else's knowledge in one edit has essentially given up the argument. Your post essentially translates to "oops, you are right and I was wrong" but you have a curious way of expressing your thoughts.--SPhilbrickT 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "thick condescension" -- when you defend your decision in terms of a sloppily worded guideline as if that guideline were well-thought-out policy, while disparaging the policy WP:PRESERVE as negligible in this instance only because you "feel" it needs to "evolve" -- well, it seems like you're looking down on the work of quite a number of policy framers. So I'd say the condescension on this issue starts, in fact, with you. Frankly, if you've actually read as much Krugman as you seem to claim above, you'd know that all the names listed were of serious influences on him; if you didn't have time to fix the Infobox influences problem, you would have been far more in conformance with policy by just tagging them all "citation needed". Instead, all you've done in your edits is suppress information, leaving an incorrect impression with readers of the infobox, and apparently you've done it only out of some high-handed bureaucratic impulse that somehow elevates a Wikipedia guideline over Wikipedia policy. And only because that's how you "feel" about the two. OK, then: See you on the article talk page. And on the talk page for Infobox MOS. Yakushima (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You refer to a "a sloppily worded guideline ". I didn't find the guideline all that hard to follow, but I have extensive experience editing such documents, and know from experience that seemingly obvious phrases can be interpreted differently. If you think the guideline can be improved, you are welcome to propose wording changes on the talk pages. If you can't come up with better wording, but can identify problems, please point them out so I and other editors can work on addressing any issues.

You sound as if I'm ignoring WP:PRESERVE, when in fact, I'm following it. As the policy states:

If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change.

I moved the names and the relevant cites to the Talk Page, where you and other interested editors can talk through how the material should be added to the main article.

You said "… you would have been far more in conformance with policy by just tagging them all "citation needed". " Actually, probably not. I don't think there ever should be references in an infobox. There are some rare exceptions, and I am separately discussing that issue. Unless someone can defend the use of citations in infoboxes generally, or delineate when they should be included, I don't support the use of references in infoboxes, and plan to remove those in Krugman, but plan to wait until that discussion reaches a consensus.

"See you on the article talk page. And on the talk page for Infobox MOS." Good, because it makes more sense to discuss article content and policy issues in those places.--SPhilbrickT 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

convenience break

"Your edit comment "(no matter how obvious to those who know the subject)" here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. The essay You do need to cite that the sky is blue partially makes the point, but the more direct point is that the audience for Wikipedia articles isn't exclusively for those steeped in the subject matter, it is closer to the opposite."

But that's why I put the names back in: for those not steeped in the subject. The audience for Paul Krugman is about equally well-reached whether the influence of Solow, et al. is footnoted or not (though citing sources will give the more curious in the audience a head start on learning more). That audience is certainly less well-reached if readers some away with the absurdly incorrect impression that the only two economists to influence Krugman significantly are Keynes and Hicks -- which is precisely the incorrect impression your amputative edit left. If you deleted the names out of ignorance, and out of a narrow-minded application of The Rules, well, I think that's precisely the kind of thing WP:IAR is for.

You deleted those names without thinking, "Hm, maybe I can improve this article by adding more material and RS support." Articles don't get better simply by conforming to narrowly-applied rules. They get better by becoming more relevant and communicative. This article became less so, because of your edits. I have no idea why you consider that defensible. Yakushima (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"I haven't edited this article enough for you to have a coherent position on my understanding of the subject matter." Yes, you have. You did it in one single edit. You deleted the names of long-known influences on Krugman. If you'd had any real understanding of the subject matter, you would have felt bad about that. Like a lot of brilliant people, Krugman's standing on the shoulders of more than two giants -- major figures in the field whose names obviously didn't even ring a bell with you. Yakushima (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not impressed by all your talk of "rules". There are policies and there are guidelines. Infobox MOS is a guideline, not a policy. As with all guidelines one should "use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Well, common sense plus knowledge of the subject clearly indicates that the stellar economists Krugman trained under, and worked with, and whose work he built upon, should not be deleted from a list of influences on his work simply because nobody has bothered to expand a section of this economist's biography devoted to, well, this economist's actual economics research career, which happens to have included huge influence from those other economists, without which we wouldn't know the name Paul Krugman. That section of has been flagged for expansion for a long time. Leaving the list of influences as it was would actually help future editors expand that section. But no, you deleted most of the names from the list. Because, you know, The Rules. Yeah, right. Yakushima (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"You've essentially agreed, as you've added some text mentioning the influences." No, I don't agree, "essentially" or otherwise. As I thought I made crystal clear in my edit summary: I did it to get you off my back. The statement I added was in fact redundant: it said nothing beyond what the infobox already said about influences -- and it was not just a redundant addition, it was a redundant addition that further lengthened an article that could always use some trimming. A better treatment of how Krugman's economic thought has been influenced by other major economists will have to wait. There's something much more important: I've noticed a number of baseball player bios where the fact that the player bats left is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article text. Among other egregious violations of your interpretation of Infobox MOS. Why don't you and I go "improve" those articles in the same way you "improved" Paul Krugman: by deleting that information? It's a basis for cooperation, is it not? And it's hard to think of any business that could be more pressing! Yakushima (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A curious rant, given that, after I pointed out the correct way to add the material, you added it correctly. Maybe your essay is your own way of saying "thanks". To that, I say, "you're welcome". --SPhilbrickT 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I told you I only did it to get you off my back, not because I thought you were right. And I meant it. But apparently you still don't get it. OK: now I'll go delete what your bureaucratic mind found so satisfying. Because until such time as that section gets the desired expansion, including when and how Krugman's economic thought was influenced by the listed people (and a couple more not yet listed), the infobox is actually already a good enough summary -- no need to further bulk out the article with pro forma kow-towing to you. Yakushima (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"if you are unable to restrain yourself form saying ... again and again, that [...] I think guidelines trump policy ...."

You certainly acted as if they did. You continue to act as if they do. You think that it's OK to delete useful information from an article, information that violates no policies whatsoever, simply because it violates mere guidelines -- guidelines that I happen to think are perfectly fine, by the way, but which are unfortunately obscure to most Wikipedia editors. You characterize such deletions as actual improvements. Dude, have you forgotten? There are readers out there. Readers who deserve better information, even when the treatment is incomplete.

It so happens in this case, somebody noticed what I'd long noticed with some irritation -- that Keynes and Hicks were the only listed "influences" in the infobox, which makes Paul Krugman look like some dinosaur in his own field. (The dinosaurs do get Nobels sometimes; Hayek's prize proved that.) I was always on some other mission when editing Paul Krugman, usually addressing some pinhead ideologue's lousy tendentious edit, so I didn't do anything about this problem. Then some editor (not me) goes and adds a list of names. Me, I have no problem with any of those names. Because they were all, in fact, major influences on Krugman. If I had a beef with this person's additions to that list, it was that it was decidedly incomplete (though it covered most of the required territory, insofar as "influences" has any rigorous definition anyway). But no matter: somebody had at least gotten a start on improving that aspect of the article.

You go and rip them out. Suddenly, Krugman's a dinosaur economist again. (A common, but false, criticism of him, actually -- there are economic commentators out there who like to say he doesn't know his modern macro simply because his Nobel-winning work wasn't specifically macro.)

Why is your deletion not WP:BLP violation? Especially after someone (namely me) documents that these people actually are major influences on Krugman? You never answer this question. Never. No matter how many times I bring it up.

You ripped them out while violating WP:PRESERVE. You, an admin. I had to point out to an admin that he was violating policy?! Your snotty comeback: WP:PRESERVE should evolve - it's just so 2001. What?! Somebody who just did a real knuckle-dragger edit on Paul Krugman is telling me a time-tested policy needs to evolve?!

I add the names back in, add some more names (why was Samuelson missing? I had no idea) and I add citations. Result: ugly. I don't like it. (As I've said, I don't even like "influences" in the infobox.) There are some primary sources cited -- iffy. But at least important information is available to readers again -- particularly to all the Krugman-haters out there (typically no-nothing Austrian School wannabes) who'd otherwise say, "Nobel-schnobel -- even Wikipedia, with all its horses and men, can't turn up any influences later than Hicks. This Krugman guy doesn't really know modern econ!" (People say worse about him, much worse, with much less provocation. Why encourage them?)

You rip the names out again. Pathetic.

Here's a bug up your butt, SPhilbrick: you think that when people are actually improving Wikipedia in ways that happen to not meet the most sophisticated standards, it's nevertheless such a dangerous encouragement to mischief (to others who might make superficially similar edits that are not improvements) that you're justified in suppressing information, while making the subject of the article look like less than he is. But why? If anyone happens to be thus encouraged, and actually damages an article (not the case here -- the worst here was that the improvements were weak), all you have to answer, when they complain about your reverts" is to say ""[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] - read it."

Here's another bug up your butt: you think someone else's sloppy edit puts some personal onus on you to make it better. You've said this more than once. Please tell me: where does it say that, in Wikipedia policy?

I would get these butt-bugs looked at, if I were you, SPhilbrick. Removed, ideally. I can recommend a good proctologist, if you don't know any. Yakushima (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for posting here, and sparing the rest of humanity. Seriously.

Second, well, it sounds like you need to rant so go ahead. If you have a specific concern, with a specific diff, I'll respond. I will comment on this: you think someone else's sloppy edit puts some personal onus on you to make it better. You've said this more than once. I said the opposite. I said "...an addition of material not meeting guidelines does not create an obligation in other editors." So if that misunderstanding bothered you, we have reason to celebrate, as it was simply your misreading.--SPhilbrickT 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not good with ambiguous double-negatives. I'm just judging you by your actions: apparently you felt it did create an onus -- to delete useful information, to delete actual (if sub-optimal) improvements to a BLP. A deletion that left the infobox characterizing Paul Krugman as a dinosaur in his own field, which he definitely is not if (a big IF in your case) you know anything about his econ career. Your response to not having the onus of improving other people's improvements still seems to have left some enormous onus: it resulted in you feeling responsible for deleting those improvements -- and calling the deletion an improvement. That's still the big issue: your apparent (initial) ignorance of policy (WP:PRESERVE), your continued violation of the spirit of it, with what look like WP:BLP violations as a result. I notice you still don't respond to this. Why not? Yakushima (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You said: I'm just judging you by your actions: apparently you felt it did create an onus -- to delete useful information, to delete actual (if sub-optimal) improvements to a BLP. You misread them, and if I did anything to mislead you, I'm sorry. I got the impression that YOU thought I had an obligation to do more than I did, and I reject that notion. If that isn't what you think, I'm sorry I misread you.

You said, A deletion that left the infobox characterizing Paul Krugman as a dinosaur in his own field...' Please. The most charitable summary of this is "silly".

You said, if (a big IF in your case) you know anything about his econ career I may well know less than you do about this subject (not enough information to tell yet) but I'd guess I know more than 99% of editors. You do know there much more to him than just an "econ career" right?

You said, your apparent (initial) ignorance of policy (WP:PRESERVE), . I've quoted the portion of the policy supporting my edits. I have yet to see you even acknowledge this, much less post a coherent rebuttal. If you honestly feel I misunderstand the policy, please cite a diff and an explanation.

You said, I notice you still don't respond to this [BLP violation]. I thought it was a joke. I wrote a long response, but deleted it because I thought it was too snarky. I urge you to report me to BLPN; the responses MIGHT be illuminating.--SPhilbrickT 13:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, on December 15, after I've brought up WP:BLP vio repeatedly, you say this? And on my Talk page just now, you say "I'll say it again: I honestly thought it was a joke." You were supposed to say that the first time I brought it up, if you really so fervently worship WP:BRD, and if you really thought it was a joke. There's no joke about WP:BLP. It's as serious as a heart attack. I was just finishing up a report about all this at the BLP notice board when I got your message. I'm now going to file it. Yakushima (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done [3] Yakushima (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't supposed to address it the first time. When someone throws up a wall of text, including everything but the kitchen sink, just to see what sticks, it isn't my obligation to respond to something I truly thought was a joke. I'm stunned that you are trying to make it a serious argument. Seriously, you have some capability of helping this project, but if you make ludicrous claims like that, you won't be taken seriously. When you repeated it, I realized you did intend it, so I responded. It isn't helpful when you claim I haven't responded, even when I have.--SPhilbrickT 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you assumed it was a joke, you were violating AGF. If you assumed I was throwing up a wall of text just to see what would stick, you were violating AGF. If all you see is a wall of text, nothing to draw you in or maintain your interest, there's always the possibility (especially under AGF) that the topic is just complex and knowledge-intensive, meriting more extensive treatment than, say, hashing out exactly which month in 1997 a high school basketball player began suffering from anorexia. What could be there for you, in those forbidding walls, considering that you openly (even casually) admit to having vanishingly little interest in precisely the aspects of Krugman's career that bear on whether there's WP:BLP violation in your deletions. This leaves you very poorly positioned to appreciate that the problem at the root of your multiple, and admitted suspensions of AGF in my case is simply your own low tolerance for complexity, your negligible knowledge of any relevant facts, and your lack of appetite for those facts. You don't believe I could possibly be serious, you don't believe that things could be as complicated as I say, you don't believe there's anything more to learn that could possibly be relevant. And yet you want to boss people around on the Paul Krugman talk page. Curiously. Yakushima (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply on the Talk page, as BLP/3RR requires. Claiming an argument is simply "false" without explanation is not in conformance with BLP/3RR. Not doing it on the Talk page is also not in conformance with BLP/3RR, which says that we need to discuss there to reah consensus. See where I reply to Bishonen. It would probably be best if you replied on that thread, to keep the discussion in one easily-found place. Yakushima (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've now been told, for the third time, that your violation of guidelines is not remedying a BLP violation. If you insist on wikilawyering, you need to get better at it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"You think that influences can be listed in infoboxes even when they are not in the main article" - well, "can" is the sense of "possible" is a certainty. See for example Friedrich Hayek and his much more "overstuffed" infobox, whose economist infobox violations are almost as long the entire, well-sourced list that I keep trying to maintain. (Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Did YOU know that I was the first to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF in our exchanges?)

But your "can" is the "can" of "may". Yes, I believe an economist infobox may contain influences that are not in the main text, IF deleting them violates WP:BLP -- as I repeatedly maintain, but as you once again fail to mention in summarizing my position, despite my repeated arguments in favor of this view. Arguments you ignored, then claimed you (silently) interpreted as "a joke". And here, once again, you oversimplify or ignore what I'm saying, in violation of the guideline WP:BRD that you pushed at me.

Here's the truth: reasonable readers can start into Paul Krugman having already fallen under false impressions promulgated by usually-reasonable people who are highly regarded in economics as they spread ignorant (or flatly dishonest) notions about Paul Krugman. I've just documented that on the talk page -- using a part of the article itself. The sooner the bio disabuses such readers of such notions, the better. Adding contemporaries as influences in the most convenient summary has other uses than that one, but it's a good place to start clearing up the misconceptions put about by the likes of Barro and Prescott (among quite a few others.)

Leaving influences only at Keynes, which you once defended in the name of what you called the economist infobox "policy", only reinforces one of many ignorant preconceptions about Krugman that float around the media. Leaving it at Keynes + Hicks + Samuelson is hardly better (especially since so many people confuse economic journalist Robert Samuelson with Nobel laureate and arch-Keynesian Paul Samuelson, who actually represent very different views.)

Krugman has a wide range of influences by the very nature of his contributions to the field; I happen to think these should be documented in the article, but once again you ignore my key point about why this hasn't happened yet, or is at least why it is going so slowly: the article is an ideological battlefield, and those of us who are equipped with the knowledge to figure out how to properly document his influences are too often exhausted by WP:BLP violators with ideological motivations. Your motivations happen to be purely bureaucratic. But they are hardly any less demotivating.

You've seen me add documentation of his influences to the article text. Under AGF, when I say I'll continue doing that, you're supposed to believe me. Conformance with the economist infobox guideline will come. Will it come with help from you? I offered to help, you rebuffed the offer. It still stands I very much doubt it. Why not? Because you've shown no evidence of knowing enough to help at all. I've offered you pieces to add (mentioning Stiglitz on your talk page, and Dornbusch on the article Talk page), AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING ABOUT THESE. You just keep removing well-documented influences under some small-minded interpretation of guidelines as if there were iron-clad, rather than open to exceptions.

So why don't you just get out of my way? Where is your strange insistence on perfection coming from? There are substantial imperfections all through that article! What makes this particular imperfection special -- except that you lack the required knowledge to see all the others, making the only one you can see appear glaring? Yakushima (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

More responses (from SPhilbrick to Yakushima regarding "influences" in infobox

You said:

How about finally reading my rationale for why you're committing WP:BLP violations, and responding to it?

As noted above I have, diffs on request. I even told you how to pursue it, if you really believe it.

All I have from you now is that you thought I was joking about it being WP:BLP vio. THAT'S ALL. And only just yesterday, not from when I started talking about it. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't yet have liquid threads so I'll respond in green. As you know, I didn't simply call it a joke, I then realized you were serious, and suggested you take it to the proper noticeboard. Which you did, so your claim "THAT'S ALL" is not just false, but demonstrably false.

Surely you must be joking. If not: is there no hair you will not split? Yakushima (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You said:

Sphilbrick initially removed useful material in violation of WP:PRESERVE,

You keep saying this, even after I quoted the relevant part of the policy.

Yes, but see where I wrote "initially"? Initially, you DID remove information in violation of that policy. You admitted the error yourself, AFTER I told you that you were in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Have you forgotten already? Go back to where all this started. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. You have yet to respond to multiple requests that you identify the material in the policy and the diffs where I violated it. You haven't stopped making this claim, so please stop the weasel word "initially"

Over and over, on the talk page for WP:IBX, I admit in bold, after striking out my own words, that I was wrong to accuse of you of serial violations of WP:PRESERVE. Been over there recently? Accusing me of "weasel wording" in "initially" is violating AGF. A pretty minor violation compared to assuming I was joking, and assuming I was only throwing up walls of text to see what would stick. "Initially" means "initially", "at first", not "First and then ever afterward." Do I really have to explain that? Yakushima (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

One more time: If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Are there any words in this passage you don't understand?

I understand it perfectly. I HAD TO POINT OUT WP:PRESERVE TO YOU, REMEMBER? But if there's WP:BLP vio involved, it's incumbent upon us to back out the changes that caused it. THEN talk about whether it is really a BLP violation or not. I can't talk about it with you if, as you claim, you kept mum on the issue every time I raise it, under the assumption I was just joking. I. AM. NOT. JOKING. I AM EDITING IN GOOD FAITH. WHICH YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ASSUME, REMEMBER? Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No I don't remember that you HAD to point it out to me. It doesn't matter, I'm familiar with it, I've quoted the relevant section supporting my edits many times, and you have yet to respond. A more serious question is whether you've read it, because you keep citing it incorrectly

Show me where I've cited it incorrectly. My beef with deleting those names is that it's WP:BLP vio. Once I finally saw you hadn't actually done serial WP:PRESERVE vio (thrown off initially by the fact that you'd started a new thread that was WP:PRESERVE-compliant, for reasons that still escape me), I sharpened the focus on the need to retain useful information. But that concern was implicit in my very first complaint about your behavior, which I'll reproduce here (also refreshing your memory about who put you into WP:PRESERVE compliance):

What about WP:PRESERVE? What about the imperative to improve articles? What about Being Bold? Simply removing Hicks as influential on Krugman is none of those things. Hicks' influence on Krugman is very much a matter of public record, see e.g., [1] Rather than remove obvious sources of influence, relying on some strenuously literal interpretation of policy [which actually turned out to be guidelines; for some reason I believed you for a little while there], why not add text and citations to the article to support them?

From the beginning, I was saying that obvious influences on Krugman should stay in the article. Obviously (or so I would have thought) leaving them out -- to the extent of making Keynes his only listed influence -- makes him look like he's only been influenced by a guy who died almost a decade before Krugman was born. I don't know how you make progress in whatever fields you've personally labored in, but in economics, reliance on contempory works is .... --oh, wait, I forgot: economics totally bores you. I can explain forever, but you'll either just see a "wall of text", or it'll evaporate from your brain two seconds later.

You said:

maybe that's why he keeps missing my point about WP:BLP vio

It is possible I'm missing the point, because it sounds silly. You honestly think readers come away with the view that Krugman is a dinosaur after looking at the entries in the influences line of the infobox. Seriously?

I honestly think that, because

• The infobox is there for casual readers, and the article is very long and not very well organized, so the infobox is doubly important. Seeing only Keynes and Hicks there annoyed me no end, because I knew it was wrong; as I've written more than once, I was always on some other more pressing editing mission with this article, and never got back to it. Then you deleted Hicks. Hicks! Leaving it as just Keynes! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE DOING!
• Economists are readers too, and most of them will find a list of only a few names as influences quite ludicrous because they know the truth.
• Paul Krugman has been criticized by yet other economists (some of whom are pretty ignorant of his work) as not really knowing macro, simply because none of his Nobel prize-winning work was in that area. A reasonably complete list of influences, especially when backed by references, provides evidence aplenty that this latter group of economists are either not doing their homework on Krugman, or simply slandering him. Wikipedia needs this information about him. You keep deleting it.

Are you familiar with the phrase "weak tea"?

That's a gibe, not a line of reasoning. It's definitely not a line of reasoning that stands up under a review of even the most recent controversies (besides ours) on the current Krugman Talk page, much less the enormous archive. It's definitely not a line of reasoning that stands up when you read economists who are critical of Krugman. But you don't. And you won't. "Weak tea"? You haven't even tasted the tea out there. It would knock you on your ass. Yakushima (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You said:

ALL of the "influences" names are those of genuine, and quite strong, influences on Krugman's economic thinking.

I've never disputed this. Nor am I agreeing. I has more than a passing familiarity with the views of Krugman, but I've never spent any time considering who may have influenced him, It just doesn't interest me.

Then get the fuck out of the way of people who ARE deeply interested, and who have some idea of what to do with this information. He's an economist first and foremost Actually "foremost" is debatable. Probably true in the narrow circle of economists, but not in the public at large (our audience). They may be aware he is an economist, but most of his works read by the public are more politics than economics. One would hope someone working on Krugman's page would know this. -- but you're not interested in what put him in the front ranks?! Not just his own effort, but QUITE A NUMBER OF OTHER GREAT ECONOMISTS. You'd never have heard of him otherwise. He'd be nothing without them, and he clearly knows that, because he has said so, over and over. Wikipedia readers should know it too. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That said, it may interest some readers. So I support the inclusion of it in the article, if the influences are material and can be properly written and sourced. At which time I'll support the names in the summary. This isn't rocket science, it is easy to understand.

I support the inclusion of it UNTIL it can be properly written and sourced -- which I'm trying to do DESPITE your constant interference. I see no harm, and plenty of good, in including it. You haven't explained how readers interests are harmed by inclusion. Who's going to come to an incorrect conclusion from reading that list? Who's going to navigate to useless or misleading material by clicking on those names? Does it slander Paul Krugman? No harm, no foul -- just clumsy, non-guideline-compliant play, which I'm trying to remedy -- and which you are doing nothing to help, only hinder, and largely because of a confessed lack of interest in the topic, and an overriding interest in your pet guidelines. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Or come up with a cogent rational for violating the guideline.

I already did that about zillion times. You complain about my "walls of text." Look, deal with it: BLP + technical (econ) + controversial = a lot of complexity in most issues with this article. This isn't a high school basketball player bio. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Either one, and the BLP claim doesn't cut it with me.

Too bad. You're too ignorant of economics to see it. Others aren't.

You have absolutely no basis to comment on my understanding of economics. How conversant are you with the strength and weakness of hedonic indices? Don't answer, I'm not interested in what you may or may not know about economics. I'd rather you concentrate on improving Krugman, in accordance with the Five Pillars.

Look, I could go over to edit Albert Einstein on the subject of his ambivalent attitudes about quantum mechanics, and if somebody reverted my edit on what seemed a purely technical point, saying my edit was slanderous, I'd have to listen to them -- physics and all. And if I couldn't follow the physics part of their argument, and nobody showed up on my side of the debate who COULD follow the physics part of the argument, I have to back down and admit that I didn't know what the fuck I was talking about.

As far as I can tell, that's where you are in this debate: just too ignorant and apathetic to follow it. Except for one thing: even though you basically admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, when it comes to Krugman's economics and the influences on it, you seem to think you don't even need to care, to boss other editors around. That doesn't cut it with me. And it doesn't cut it with economists. Or with lay readers interested in his economic influences. Who ALSO form part of the audience for this article, in the same way that a fourth-year physics student or a professional physicist might start with Wikipedia's Niels Bohr when they wanted to learn more about him.

Cognoscenti are part of Wikipedia's audience too. All they have to start with is a name in a list? So what? They're grownups, they can click on a link. If the Wikipedia trail goes cold, at least it got them a start, and there's the rest of the web (including Google scholar) to fall back on. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

--SPhilbrickT 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it just isn't worth the time sink.

For the record though, I think I've responded to every legitimate question you've asked. If I've missed something in the wall of text, please ask it clearly. I'd like to see the same courtesy extended to me, but I fear that's too much to ask.

However, if you'd prefer to spend time cleaning up the mess you are making at Paul Krugman, that's' understandable. It still isn't in compliance, but I'd rather you fix it, than waste time arguing that it doesn't need fixing. I'm going to let it go for some time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vaagdevi College of Engineering again

Appears there may also be a WP:COI issue here.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Big game tonight

Best of luck to your Huskies. Always like to see the best go up against the best. Rikster2 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the thought. We had a viewing party with some friends, so it was mostly a good night, but a good game anyway.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lorem

Hi. I hope this is OK. It was added here. the {{lorem}} was accidental? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I went to a template page and copied something, and forgot to remove that. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN CCI

YOu stated that this was not a copyvio. However, reproducing a complete short article[4] in a quote seems to me to be very excessive use of the "fair use" rules. Fram (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I invite your input at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited, where I am wrestling with what is allowed, specifically in quotes in footnotes.

The quote is two sentences, easily within Masem's 2-3 sentence suggestion. However, as I said, that strikes me as on the long side, and proportion of source (which I frankly missed) argues for reduction. In many cases, the link to a NYT reference only displays the first couple of sentences, so I missed that this was the complete article.

I started off generally opposed to any quotes in footnotes, but have come around to accepting them in some circumstances.

I may have swung too far the other direction, allowing more than I would personally use in such a situation.

It is common, in many written works, to use footnotes to contain fairly extensive amounts of material. Wikipedia generally does not do that, but I'm unclear whether that is just community practice, or spelled out specifically. I tend toward MRG's formulation "there should be clear reason why we need to". While her comment was posted before my acceptance of the quote, I read it afterward. In retrospect, I should have gone back, and either removed or shortened the quote.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at that discussion, using this example. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

re:New Article Feedback

Hi Sphilbrick,

Apologies for bugging you here. I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IvanV following your advice and guidelines from Wikipedia helpdesk page. I trust it is much better now. Can you maybe please tell me how and when will "new unreviewed article" get removed from the page?

Thanks so much for your time.

```` Future Beats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Beats (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the template, but please do not treat this as a measure that everything is fine. I have an extremely low threshold for what can pass an initial review. My quick glance at the references did not identify any that clearly qualify as reliable sources. Maybe some do, but if some other editor proposes this article for deletion due to lack of adequate sources, you won't be able to cite me as support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no need to apologize for "bugging" me here. This is the place to do it, and I'm happy to respond. I wish I could do more, but I have a couple items on my to-do list, however, feel free to ask any questions, and I'll try to respond.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still very new to Wikipedia and I am really trying to adhere to common Wikipedia standards but I do understand what you are saying. I hope that my article will not get "blacklisted" as it is not better or worse comparing to a few other musician articles I was using as comparison when creating mine : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Digweed , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Goode , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_State, etc.

Cheers --Future Beats (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big, complex place, with its own jargon, for better or worse. The article will not be "blacklisted" because that is a term we use for external sites on the internet that should not be used as references. If you meant you hoped it wouldn't be deleted, I hope not as well, but you can help by making sure it is well-referenced and well-written. I urge you not to bring up other articles as comparison. With almost 4 million articles, there are some articles in pretty bad shape, and the threshold for inclusion is not to be simply as good as the worst. This view is so pervasive, there is even an essay on the topic, called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. One final note, while it is understandable that you would refer to it as "my article" because you've put almost all the work into it, we do discourage that mindset. This isn't just an essay it is policy : WP:OWN. No big deal, many new editors feel that way, but I'm pointing things out to help you avoid pitfalls. Hope you enjoy editing here and keep it up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy of York Subidivion

I personally re-wrote all of this content from scratch. It was clearly not "non-ambiguous". The article will be restored, and further deletions or requests will result in administrative action. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of AGF? I take reviewing possible copyvios seriously, but I do occasionally make mistakes. The deletion was five days ago, and I honestly do not recall my exact thought process, except I recall that there was a bad link for a reference. I think I looked for other evidence, but I can't recall exactly what I did, but it wasn't cavalier, although it may have been a mistake,. The phrase "further deletions or requests will result in administrative action" is unnecessarily confrontational. On a more positive note, I see you are from Toronto, a place I've visited twice in the last few months, once for two weeks. Enjoyed it quite a bit, except for the traffic.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, AGF is precisely the problem. I see no evidence that you checked the article, the reference, or my own edit history. Had you done any of those, I assume that you would have assumed AGF, and the deletion would not have occurred. I do not have a problem with your own AGF, I have a problem with lazy deletions. Next time, check the actual content and the editor's history. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete it, and your fail-safe position should always be towards content retention. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why you are expending this much energy on this, when it took seconds to restore, but I don't like being accused of laziness, so I'm looking at the history. The article was tagged for deletion on 9 December. Do you disagree it was a problem at that time? It was deleted on that day, by someone else. Then you restored it at 17:10 on 15 December. The restored article still had the copyvio template, so popped up in this cat. It was still a copyvio at that time. I looked at the article, some time between 17:10 and 17:18. I tried to look at the reference, but couldn't because it was a bad link, so grabbed a phrase from the article and did a Google search. I didn't record precisely what phrase I used, but "It was built between 1959 and 1965 to connect the new" is a typical phrase I might have used. That brings up this site, and the words on the article were a copy paste of that site. Convinced, I deleted it at 17:30. Coincidentally, you edited the article at 17:18, so were repairing it, even while I was looking at it. It is very common that it takes me a few minutes to confirm that an article is a copy vio, because I don't take the responsibility lightly. When I find convincing evidence that an article is a copyvio, I delete it. What I do not do, is load the article one more time to see if it has materially changed in the few minutes I have been investigating. If you can get a community consensus that admins should take this extra step every single time, then I'll do it. I'm sorry I deleted the article, even as you were working on it, but it wasn't laziness, it was a good faith effort to find a violation, which I did find.

We are in agreement that there is a failure of AGF. Did you even consider asking me why I deleted it?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just can't let this "We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete it, and your fail-safe position should always be towards content retention" pass. I consider myself closer to the inclusionist end of the spectrum that the exclusionist, in most cases, but not when it comes to possible copyvios. We probably have thousands of copvios in Wikipedia, and detractors of Wikipedia would find it easy to assemble evidence including a large number of exhibits. On the chance that someone does make such a ruckus, I want to be able to present evidence that the community is making a good faith effort to remove copyvios, and that the community is working hard on this, not just lip service. In close calls regarding copyvio, we err on the side of exclusion. We do not need some outside body concluding that Wikipedia is cavalier about addressing copyright issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on Meaning of Liff draft

Hi Sphilbrick - not sure where things stand with my draft as above - I left a comment in response on the Help desk page, but haven't heard anything from the volunteers there since?--Davescanlon (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just recording here that I responded to you, and contacted three editors to see if they would help. At least one responded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Perpetual Misunderstanding Agreed, but the misunderstanding is one-sided

Let's see if you understand economics.

Nice start.

I have something I value: my time.

Ditto. Stop wasting mine.

I am planning to spend some of my time doing a couple hundred CCI edits – in economic terms, I am exchanging my time for the edits.

I seem to remember it was in the thousands. Thousands is the number that need doing. I'm only proposing that you to do a small percentage Look, I don't even know what a CCI edit is, and right now, I don't fucking care.which means you are rejecting a deal and you don't even understand it. This is volunteer work. Nobody has enslaved you to be an editor on Wikipedia.

Why? Because I value the edits more than my time. Both sides are better off.

You still haven't given me a reason to care.

You claim to care about improving Krugman, and I'm offering to help. What word don't you understand?

You have hinted that I should work on adding influences to the Krugman article.

No, I have not hinted. I have said outright: if you're going to work on Krugman, you could more productively spend your time getting the article into compliance with the economist infobox "influences" guideline by adding to the main text rather than by deleting useful information, moreover in a way that violates WP:BLP. ADDRESS THESE POINTS, AS WP:BRD REQUIRES.

That might well make me better off, but I could do so only at the expense of not doing a 100 or so CCI edits, so it is a bad trade-off.

I don't know what a CCI is, and it's not my problem anyway. It's your problem. So I don't care.

However, if you did 100 CCI edits, and I worked on the Krugman article, I would get what I want, so it would be a Pareto optimal exchange for me.

I'm not interested in whatever would be a Pareto optimal exchanges for you. I'm interested in making Paul Krugman better. Deleting most of his influences, even after I've provided solid citations for them, just gets in the way of that accomplishment. From what I can tell so far, it's not even an accomplishment you're capable of. From what I can tell, you don't ever care. YOU HAVE SAID OUTRIGHT THAT YOU'RE NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED WHO INFLUENCED PAUL KRUGMAN. REMEMBER?Of course I remember. It is still true. Is it beyond your comprehension that someone can work on something and do a credible job, even if they don't particularly care about the content?

That doesn't mean you should agree; you might find CCI edits beyond your abilities, and could not agree to do them, or maybe you can do them, but it would be so onerous, that the cost in time to do the edits would not be worth the gain you would get with my help.

I don't care. I only care about improving Paul Krugman,obviously false, as you are turning down an opportunity to improve it. One might think you care more about making arguments you actually think you are winning without interference from people who show vanishingly little knowledge of the content issues at stake.

Only you can answer whether the trade-off is Pareto optimal for you, but why not address the economics, rather than decline using some mage up argument that I am betraying principles.

You offered me your little horsetrade in lieu responding to my points. WP:BRD requires, if nothing else, that you stay on topic. I made a case that leaving a vestigial "influences" list plays to perceptions that reasonable people might have, after reading the comments of esteemed economists who might be thought reasonable. I DID NOT WRITE ALL THAT ABOUT BARRO AND PRESCOTT AS A JOKE. Either supply a response (better than "this makes no sense", or "no reasonable person would believe this"), or leave a debate that you're basically just evading at this point.

If you conclude that CCI edits aren't for you, that's fine, then we can't make an exchange, because we wouldn't both be better off.

You shouldn't be horsetrading on a matter of principle in the first place.that's twice you've accused me of violating principle. Twice, without a coherent explanation You should be trying to reach consensus on the actual issues.Here's a hint: When every single editor disagrees with you, then there's a consensus, and it isn't for your position. Consensus is resolved. If you really want to improve the article, either do it yourself, or discuss my proposal

So far, you offer to me, in economic terms, has been: I should give up doing what I want to do, and work on something I do not want to work on, in exchange for ….nothing. In economic terms, can you see why I am not jumping at your offer?

If you actually wanted to work on getting the influences into compliance (beyond simply deleting names and citations, the easy way out), why haven't you done it yet? I gave you place to two places start: Stiglitz and Dornbusch. In the case of Dornbusch, I did most of the work for you. You still didn't lift a finger, when you could have made progress with little more than finger-lift, as I left it. So you have no credibility left with me, when you claim you want to do real work on the article. Yakushima (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep claiming that I "want to do real work on the article"? I don't want to but I'm willing to. I'm offering a proposal that makes us both better off. The problem is, you can't accept it without conceding that you might be wrong about me, and that is too high a price for you to pay. More's the pity.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

In summary, I couched a proposal in economic terms and you...punted.

I made a good faith offer, to give up some of my time to help you, if you would agree to work on something the project needs. Your counter-offer? That I should do what you want in exchange for...nothing. In negotiation terms, that's not considered a good faith counter-offer. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:A barnstar for you!

Re:A barnstar for you!

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (pages 1 and 2) + find "meta/" + twinkle :) Bulwersator (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Templates restored, and no barnstar from me

I do not believe that those templates met the criteria of WP:CSD#G8. Those templates existed as metadata which can be used by templates, are part of a series of similar templates used by templates related to UK politics, particularly those which display election results (they are used in the "political result" column of Template:Compact election box). There usefulness depends in large part on the series being reasonably complete. Deleting those which are currently unused degrades the utility of the set as a whole.

As the creator of most of those templates, I was notified about only one of them, Template:British National Party/meta/abbrev, at 15:43 today, and it was deleted less than an hour later at 16:39. That is remarkably little notice at the best of times, but even more so in the runup to christmas, when I and most editors are likely to be taking a break. It is made worse by the fact that no attempt was made to explain that this was part of a series of similar deletions.

The reason given for deletion was clearly inappropriate. G8 refers to "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page", but all /meta templates fit this definition; G8 should not have been used unless all /meta templates were to be deleted, and I hope nobody is contemplating that. In any case, G8 provides an exemption for "page that is useful to Wikipedia", and I see no evidence that any attempt has been made here to asses the usefulness of these templates.

I will now restore all of those which were deleted. If either of you still believes that the existence of these templates is damaging to wikipedia, please nominate them for deletion en masse at WP:TFD, and allow a discussion to take place. If you decide to do so, please be kind enough to a) wait until xmas/new year holidays are over, so that more editors will be around; b) to include with the nomination a link to my post here; c) to notify WT:WPUKPOL.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: the same issues apply to all the other /meta templates which were deleted in this exercise, because they all function as sub-templates of a series of standardised political templates. I will therefore restore them all, and suggest that they should be tagged in future as {{G8-exempt}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are hard at work restoring the templates. Many thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I noticed that the pages I had restored still have the Speedy tags on them. Those should really be removed.

Also, I took a closer look at what happened. On further examination, I see that both Bulwesator (who tagged the templates) and you as deleting admin both apparently omitted to check whether the templates were used. For example, {{Conservative Party (UK)/meta/abbrev}} was tagged for G8 here, and deleted 4 minutes later. However it is currently listed as being used in several dozen article-space pages. as well as being transcluded in the documentation of {{Compact election box}}.

Whatever methodology either of you is using to select templates for speedy deletion, please revise it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I had it all cleaned up, but Fastily came along and deleted them all again. I'm writing to him to see if there's a better way of fixing this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

i love this page

Oscar45596524 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ambox/uncyclopedic

Curious, why did you restore this page but not remove the speedy deletion tag? I'm not sure what to do, since I don't want to redelete and thus revert you, but since you didn't decline the speedy, I don't want to decline it based simply on your actions. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally deleted a couple hundred templates, that I thought had a valid delete rationale, but did not. It was brought to my attention, not long before I had to run out to a family obligation, so I went through the delete log and restored virtually all the templates I had deleted. I was rushing because I was late to leave, so I think that one happened to be in the list, but was a valid deletion, so it got caught up in my assembly line undeletion action. I just got home, and was going to check to see if I needed any cleanup. Looks like it has been deleted. Sorry about that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Template:Blank/meta/shortname shouldn't have been undeleted. Three different editors edited it before you: two of them blanked the page after their own edits, and the third one tagged it for deletion — every single user who's edited this page either blanked the page or tagged it for deletion. To answer your question — no, I don't. I know virtually nothing about automated methods; the only script that I've ever used at a WMF website is the nominate-this-file-for-deletion script at Commons. Thanks for restoring Template:Communist Party of Great Britain/meta/abbrev, which I shouldn't have deleted in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I screwed up when I deleted it so I'm manually undeleteing everything. Any thoughts on how to do it faster? I'll redelete that one, I thought maybe it was a template for a template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My only suggestion is tabbed browsing — I'll often up almost twenty tabs in my browser when there are lots of pages to delete or undelete. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Fastily#The_Templates_with_meta

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

For manually cleaning up that mess. Major props. -FASTILY <sup>(TALK)</sup> 21:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I love those cookies. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Storms"

...refers to named storms, as in "Nesat" and such. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that satisfying. I bet there are thousands of uses of the term "storm" in Wikipedia, to mean something other than named storms. If the intention is that "storms" as the section heading, is short for "Named storms" then a lot of editing is needed. "Named storms" strikes me as a reasonably defined term. Why not use it, if that is what is meant (although I'm not convinced that is what was meant).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement in Storm (disambiguation) A storm is a severe weather condition. is in conflict. Which is right? My money is on the dab page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll do it. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Cloudz679's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Something to watch for

There's an unpleasant software bug to watch for when you're deleting old version of files. If an old version of the file itself is corrupt, what the system does when you try to delete the corrupted revision—by a script or by manually clicking [delete] for the revision—is that it deletes the edit history but leaves the current version and the corrupted version of the file alone. So you have the file still visible, but it has no edit history attached. You can spot these errors after the fact easily: the deletion summary will be (Reduce supplied) when using the script. There will be no mention of a revision. To correct this, you restore the file so you can delete all of it (using &action=delete without any reference to a file version (ie use the [delete] tab as if it were an article)), then you do a selective restore to the versions you want left. I've just fixed a bunch in both mine and your deletion log. It is very tedious. Maxim<sub>(talk)</sub> 21:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. What a pain. I confess I'm not yet completely following, but I'll cease my deletions until I get a handle on it. Would you be so kind as to identify an example? I'm glancing at your recent deletion history, and not sure I'm following. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, I ran the script against File:Timalliwant.jpg. In the edit summary "? (Deleted old revision 20101019045858!Timalliwant.jpg: Reduce supplied)" I see the string "Reduce supplied" but I see that in all summaries. I'm looking at the file, and don't see an obvious problem. I think you are suggesting that if the problem occurs, the edit summary will include only the string "Reduce supplied"? If so, I'm not seeing such an example.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think we should let Fastily know, for a couple reasons, indulgence the possibility that the script could be modified.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, we had this same software bug a few years ago as well, and I was told it had been fixed. I guess I'll create a new bug report. As for the userscript, AFAIK, it's coded correctly and would perform the job consistently if the mediawiki software wasn't bugged. That said, just check each file after you run the script for any abnormalities. Should you find anything unusual, restore the page and get ready to manually delete old revs :o -FASTILY <sup>Happy 2012!!</sup> 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain again. For example this log entry:

• (del/undel) 12:15, 25 December 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Fender logo.svg" ‎ (Reduce supplied) (view/restore)

It doesn't mention anything about deleting a revision of a file - it's because the edit history only was deleted. This is the string you search for: exactly (Reduce supplied), as above in the example. The script's alright, actually; it's the software. This sort of problem occurs about 1–5 times out of 2000 log entries, so it's something that's easier to fix after the fact than carefully looking for it. Just doing a find for a log page is faster. PS: It's not a reason to stop deleting stuff, but it's something to check for when done a batch. Maxim<sub>(talk)</sub> 02:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that "Reduce supplied" appears in ones that are OK. I now see that I want to look for "(Reduce supplied)", becasue legitimate ones won't have the opening parens. Thanks, I'll watch for that.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your hidden quote idea

Hi I came across one of your ideas about using a "hidden quote" as a way to solve both worlds -- preventing semantic drift, avoiding copyright issues, and letting future editors see the original source in case content becomes hidden behind a paywall. What I'm wondering is: how would this work in practice? would it be using the " <!--- and ---> " parameters within the quote space of a citation? Or after or before the citation within the text (but unseen in read mode, and seen in edit mode). The whole quoting issue is one that I contend with a lot -- I like using a quote to establish verifiability but at the same time not doing it too extensively so that it risks copyvio issues, and I am thinking of using your hidden quote system from now on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair question - I hadn't fully thought it through. I just tried an example in User:Sphilbrick/Sandbox for Reelin testing. I added the quote parameter to the first footnote (Note I am using LDR, so you will have to scroll down to the ref section). Adding "|quote=" followed by the hidden comment lets the editor know it is a quote, but the parsing treats the parameter as blank, so it doesn't show up in the footnote, as desired.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool! So it works within the quote parameter to hide the quote. So it straddles both worlds. Hey, excellent idea!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to thank-you for the extensive comments you've made to the discussion. I'm not quite sure where it is headed yet, but there's been some interesting discussions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope I didn't blab on a bit much; I think I learned more from the discussion than I contributed (even though I tend to write on and on and on :) ), and I probably will use your hidden quote idea from now on. I encourage you to add the hidden quote idea to the discussion -- I think it's a good one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing we might consider, if you add this idea to the discussion, is that there might be a note within the hidden quote telling future editors not to delete the hidden quote? It might be something as simple as <!--- Please don't delete for reference only: Quote goes here blah blah blah ---> -- something like that. Just an idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to give RAN a chance to respond, but I see RAN is editing, and hasn't felt inclined to respond, so I will write something up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Pepeleyva's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brilliant thinking

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For brainstorming the hidden quote solution to permit verification while protecting copyrights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note -- the Sphilbrick idea is to use the "quote parameter" within a citation, by using |quote= within the citation template, BUT disabling the code using <!--- quote goes here ---> . Thus, fact-checkers can find the actual quote within the reference IF they are working in edit mode, but the quote is hidden for all other purposes, thus protecting the copyright privileges of the material quoted. Fine job, Sphilbrick! You are one of the amazing people I bump into at Wikipedia on occasion, and I commend your intelligence and creativity!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) The jury is till way out on whether others will accept it, but we'll see.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 09:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring

(copy from my talk page)

Please stop the edit warring. I've listed every edit on the talk page. Please join in and see if we can reach a consensus, but your reversions, after being warned, are inappropriate.

There's a way to achieve consensus - it includes discussion of the issues and making cogent arguments, not simply hitting the revert button.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you might wonder which version is "preserved" while discussions are ongoing. In some cases, this is problematic, and there are guidelines on how to handle it, but I don't think that applies in this case.

Have you read WP:BRD?

• The addition of the phrase though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority" by the IP was BOLD
• Vision Thing REVERTed it.
• Now we DISCUSS whether it should be included.

We don't leave in an unsourced IP addition while we debate whether to remove it. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am edit warring then so are you. Vision Thing's edit removed 2 things and added 3, but you still added it back three times, against BRD. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:BIOGRAPHY, and it's not OK for someone to come to a BLP to only always makes the person look bad, so stop helping Vision Thing. I was right to revert him. FurrySings (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, my edit is obviously not vandalism, so don't call it that when you revert in the edit summary.[5] FurrySings (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to read BRD. You don't get it yet. The addition has been made and reverted. Now is time to discuss. I can't make it much easier for you; I've laid out a separate subsection for every edit. All you have to do it discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The advice you received at BIO was predicated on the "facts" you provided, which don't stand up to scrutiny. Let's see if you get the same advice after the participants review the actual facts, rather than your summarization.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR? I think FurrySings has violated it... I've suggest at WP:BIO everyone step back & let things cool, & I'm wishing I hadn't stepped in the middle of what looks like a continuing argument over Krugman... TREKphiler <sup>any time you're ready, Uhura</sup> 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Pepeleyva's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

9/11 conspiracy theories

Ghostofnemo has taken the content dispute at 9/11 conspiracy theories to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your name and discussion with is Ghostofnemo is included there in a collapsed section as part of my statement.[6] You may or may not wish to comment there, but I wanted to at least let you know. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I tried hard to work with GON, and had hopes we would accomplish something, but I failed. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sea level?

Hi, BTW, you probably saw my edit to Current sea level rise. Does that resolve the issue(s)? If not, please post in the thread on the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The referencing now looks fine; I thank you for working this through. Nice work.

Unfortunately, your edit added a condition that I don't believe is supported by the source. You added "at least" to the range. My talk page is clearly not the right place to discuss this in detail; if you simply agree that it isn't supported, and edit accordingly, then we are done. It is possible I missed the support, but if that is the case, I'll bring it up on the article talk page and we can discuss.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place, but I'll post my reply here as a "head's up", and if you take it to the article talk page, please copy and paste this comment since I would say the same thing anyway. Throughout the SYR portion of the AR4 report, in many places, they project numbers and then assign likelihood to those numbers. Please check this specific section (SYR 3-2-1), and don't just look at the table we were talking about in the thread before. Instead, please read the whole page. Note that IPCC says "this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." (bold supplied) They did not hedge their lower boundary. In law, calling out one term for special treatment but not the other is typically read to say something about both. See also WG1's summary section on sea level projections. In that section they also talk about even higher rates being possible "Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could increase the ice sheet contributions substantially, but quantitative projections cannot be made with confidence" Nowhere do I find any suggestion that they thought flows could reduce below whatever rate they used in their projections. (I saw that defined once, but don't remember what it was). Elsewhere, they discuss carbon-cycle feedbacks, and while some are indeed negative, IPCC is generally talking about net warming (which would lead to more thermal expansion and more melting). Again, no nibbles at that lower number, just the upper one. So IMO it accurately reports what IPCC said when I wrote "at least....but the numbers don't include....(two things that throughout the WG1 report are only discussed in terms of staying the same or increasing)". With no science suggesting those unknowns will fall, "at least" is an accurate presentation of the IPCC report. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

PS whaddayknow? Citing the IPCC report, the New Zealand ministry of environment web page says "Other consequences include more extreme weather events, like floods, storms, cyclones and droughts, and estimated global sea-level rises of at least 18 to 59cm". [7]. For fun, try the following search string at (A) google and (B) Google-scholar

IPCC "sea level" "at least 18cm" OR "at least 18 cm" OR "at least 18 to 59" OR "at least 18-59"

So it does require discussion. I'll bring it up at the article talk page, but I'm occupied at the moment--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi, I was wondering if you would please undelete an old userpage of mine? It was User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox5. The timestamp for deletion reads: 14:58, 6 March 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox5" ‎ (Author request, unneeded userpage). Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but oh no-! Someone already went back and deleted it again :( SteveStrummer (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I did restore it, but I restored it to it latest stage, which had a deletion request on it. I tried again, let's see if this will stick.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All good – thank you! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brief brief response again, Sadads (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah for the encouragement

I appreciate the time you took to write the enrouragement. Its cool, I had a good idea it wouldn't go through. I do intend to leave it a while, and then reapply. I'm doing more editing, would probably like to help out with disputes, and generally get a wider skillset with Wikipedia, rather than just writing articles. As mentioned, one of the satisfying things I have done was getting involved in high level mediation over The war of 1812.... ...which is a diabolically politicised article. That required me to get a better grop on policy.

So anyways, I will reapply after leavining it a while. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I have seen more examples than I care to think about, of a very solid editor, not quote ready for admin, who became discouraged after a failed RfA. I do not want that to happen. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

SB

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BTW, this has something to with Overstock.com and something called Naked short selling. Apparently, there is/was some sort of real world dispute which spilled into Wikipedia.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm on top of that. I know what Naked short selling is, have opinions on it (support it), have followed the Overstock saga to some extent.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA stats

Hi Sphilbrick. iI see you recently asked about stats for RfAs. A huge amount of research into all kinds of stats for RfA has been published in both graph and table form with extrapolations and summaries at WP:RFA2011. If you navigate through the pink nav box, you may well find what you are looking for. If not, and if it would be of general interest, I'm sure that either Scottywong or I would be able to organise an extract from the database for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that had exactly the data I wanted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with something... my tendency to create animosity in others towards me. You saw a very good example of it at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. I'm coming to you because you were about the only one there who seemed to understand what was going on (and the file was deleted).

I do tend to get involved in a lot of contentious issues, and as a result into many arguments. My approach is to try to persuade people with argument, which is my understanding of how we reach consensus on WP. But sometimes people seem to get into this mindset where they stop AGF and misinterpret everything, which is what happened at that MfD.

Anyway, if you have any suggestions or any kinds of word of advise, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Born2cycle, I am completely unfamiliar with this situation, but I'll give you two pieces of advice. If it applies, great. If it doesn't apply, just ignore my post.

• When you post something on Wikipedia, ask yourself, "Is this likely to ease tensions or escalate tensions?" If you can reasonably anticipate that it's going to escalate tensions, it's time to reword or not post it.
• Explain a point once or twice, but probably not more. If you're in a content dispute with someone and you explain the same point once or twice, either the other person is going to get it or not. If something didn't convince someone the first couple times, it probably never will. The more an argument gets repeated, the more likely it will be ignored.

Like I said, I am completely unfamiliar with this situation. If what I said doesn't apply, just ignore it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)