User talk:Sphilbrick

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Copyright violations on Chartered Institutes for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chartered_Institute_for_the_Management_of_Sport_and_Physical_Activity

Thank you for flagging the copyright violation. I agree with the removal. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website you flagged. This included infobox additions, a new section, and other text in the introduction not related to the vision/mission paragraphs.

I have reintroduced these elements onto the page. I will leave mission/vision absent.

COI on my profile. Happy to add elsewhere if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reece_at_CIMSPA

While it may not seem like the right thing to do, it is convention, when identifying a copyright issue, to do a rollback, which sometimes picks up other copyright issues and sometimes picks up inrelated,a nd non-problematic issues. You are always welcome to restore the non-copyright issue edits.

Mountaineering boot

Hi Sphilbrick , I added the section about the mountaineering boots, and I consulted it with an IFMGA mountain guide, and there is alot to find about the subject in books and on various sites, that it can happen that it looks like a violation of a site or book, hich makes it than difficult to refrase it, with out looking like a violation of it. And getting the information from a tour guide site, would be quite strange, than I would rather go to a more informative site like from the BMC or in my own country, the NKBV.

Regards, Travellin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellin (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Travellin, I was actually hoping that you might respond, if only so that I could ask you whether your interest in editing this article is just a casual interest or whether you have mountaineering experience.

Regarding the content, I don't disagree with your desire to choose a source that's informative, but the text must be written in general, in your own words. We do permit exceptions such as exact quotations although these are to be generally as short as possible, and must be clearly indicated as quotes either with quote marks or with block quotes. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason why I added it, was also because of my background as a mountaineer, and having worked as a flight/ ER nurse for a mountain rescue organisation, based in Chamonix, France, the mountain guide, I asked for information, is my brother, and he delivered also the picture on the page of the mountain boots under the name Zikking. Travellin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellin (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Travellin, Thanks for that info. I've never climbed in France, in fact, I've only spent 15 minutes in France, so not enough time to climb :) The closest is Switzerland. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Brent International School Manila

Thanks for taking a look at the copyright problems on this draft. Unfortunately, there's still outstanding copyright violations. Here's the ones I've been able to track down:

• The first paragraph is an almost word for word copy of the first paragraph here. There are some changes; the copy here includes "...and international perspective" and the "...and equipped for entry to colleges and universities throughout the world" is modified from "...and equipped not just for entry to universities throughout the world..." at that source.
• The first two sentences of the history section are a word for word copy from the third paragraph here, with the exception of the addition of the parenthetical "(that location has since closed)".
• The entire Philosophy and Goals section is lifted word for word from this pdf, starting with labeled page 2 (actual page 8 in the PDF).

Some of these copyright violations were extant in the very first version of this edition of the draft. Thanks for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I see that this was reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edwinacuna_/_Edwinacuna69 and has been deleted. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Julius Debrah Copyright Violation

I appreciate the look into the Julius Debrah article, Unfortunately the reversal of the entire page as a copyright violations seems a little harsh. I have reworked the article and I plead you look back into that. The initial article had tags with the need for more citations and references to the article since it had less sourced information. With that in mind a conscious approach was taken to get more information about the subject in question and to get more data and sourced information. Look back into the re edits and leave a message. Thanks. Ampimd (talk)13:44, 4 December 2020

I appreciate that you are relatively new in terms of edits, but you've been here for five years. Are you not yet aware that providing a link to the article in question and signing your post would help? Yes, I can manage to track down the article you are talking about, and I can figure out how to find your user page, but when you are asking for help, it helps to provide basic information.

I anticipated that you might be unhappy with the decision. I haven't looked at all of what you did but I do see quite a number of consecutive edits so you apparently spent some time working on this article.

However, one of your larger edits was a substantial violation of copyright, assuming that the notice at the bottom of this page:

Copyright 2019 CENTRE FOR DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS-GHANA, All Right Reserved

is accurate.

It is standard practice when encountering a copyright violation to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. if you think the edit involving the material at that link is actually not a copyright violation, explain why and if you are correct I will restore everything. If you accept that the particular edit is problematic, I did a revision deletion to the particular edit in question but did not touch the others, so you could restore those edits yourself. It is our experience that when an editor makes an edit in violation of copyright policy, it is very often the case that contiguous edits are problematic and should be reverted until such time as it can be shown that they are fine. Feel free to redo any of the edits that you think are acceptable.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry for the issues raised. I have been here for 5 years but I am still new to edits as you said. Still learning and working on improving. Thanks for checking it out and giving me some feedback. That information has been withdrawn and its been edited to suit the purposes of wikipedia. Thanks for the feedback. Hope to come back from extra help when needed, Thank you.-----------------------------------Ampimd (talk)17:08, 4 December 2020

McDowell Mountain Preserve - copyright material

Thank you, Sphilbrick

I understand what I did. I would like to be able to get in and change the content so it is not a direct copy from the website. How can I get back in to rewrite this section?

My copy to add is: After years of land acquisition through purchase, exchange with developers, and the City of Scottsdale extending their Sonoran Preserve holdings, the Fountain Hills McDowell Mountain Preserve is now 882 acres of contiguous, undivided land. The Preserve extends from the southern mountains of Scottsdale to the McDowell Mountain Regional Park border to the north.

Adero Canyon Trailhead provides access to the Ridgeline Trail, Easy Access Trail, Overlook Trail, Western Loop Trail, Promenade Trail, and Lower Sonoran Trail.

Thank you. I am learning the Wiki ways.

BowenLarsen (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to change this copy - with factual information not from the town's website. When will I be allowed to do this?

BowenLarsen (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

BowenLarsen, Any time. Make sure the information is written in your own words. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dalton, California

California Historical Landmark sign quote.

• There was no copyright violation here. A quote that is in italics and starts with this sign reads, is not a copyright violation. The quote had a reference to a picture of the sign and the state web site you noted. By this logic here every quote on wikipedia, italics or no italics, should be deleted now. Now if there was no italics and it looked like I was writing about the topic you would be correct. But I did not.

Thank you Telecine Guy (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Telecineguy, That hasn't persuaded me, but I'm not in a mood to fight about it. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, much appreciated. Telecine Guy (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion Request for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad

Hey There ! Its is Honourable request that i report this article because it's against our religion...that's the fake news and totally false article that is written in it I request you to please remove this or change it... please it's our religion question. Abdullahijaz 9 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Abdullahijaz 9, I'm not sure why you are contacting me. There are ways to address such concerns, such as challenging the fake information on the article talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, Sorry, it didn't sink in that this is the Google fiasco. I now get it. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting updating of Women related laws in Pakistan with new text

Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I am not clear how I am involved. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		for the thankless task of deleting all those sock articles. Onel5969 TT me 03:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess it is no longer thankless :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 05:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you (those words sound automatic, and do not fully convey how welcome this is).--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Sphilbrick, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Misspelled ping

I was trying to ping you at Wikipedia talk:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project, but miswrote your name and corrected it later. Did you still get the notification? ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, No, but I will visit there now S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy del

Hi Sphilbrick. Hope you are well and had a good Christmas. You recently helped in the mass deletion of articles created by a banned user. This one has slipped through the net, which was my fault due to tagging it a bit later than the others. If you have a moment, please could you do the same on this one too. Thanks and all the best for 2021! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Got it.  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Tahaaleem ^Talk— is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tahaaleem ^Talk 13:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tahaaleem, Thank-you, and Happy New Year to you as well. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Women's T20 Challenge

are you able to restore the article Women's T20 Challenge? It was created by a blocked/banned user but other editors have contributed to it. And currently we don't have this parent article about the competition, but we do have articles for the specific seasons 2019 and 2020, which makes very little sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I have emailed you the contents of that article. It's my understanding that when we remove an article created by a banned or blocked user, the article can be re-created by another editor then takes responsibility for the contents. I haven't thought through how attribution to other contributors should be handled. I'll let you think about that. It might be as simple as dropping a note on the talk page acknowledging the other contributors. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WP:NOATT says that no attribution is needed for "Material that has been deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki", which the original contents of this article is. So I think I'm good, will ad a note on the talkpage as well, that should more than suffice. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, Sounds good, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, Thank-you! S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks  :) Empire AS ^Talk! 18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sphilbrick!

Happy New Year!

Sphilbrick,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank-you, and hope you have a great year as well. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Slumming

You've been slumming I notice :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I wouldn't call it slumming. I find it mildly interesting that some of the participants, who jump to conclusions on too little evidence, think I'm an apologist for you. I defend you when you are unfairly attacked, but that seems to be misinterpreted. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You seemed to me to be one of the editors who opposed calling WUWT "denialist" etc. so the comments there are ignorant as well as rude. But William M. Connolley should be feeling complimented when reading that he doth bestride the narrow Wikipedia world like a colossus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, You are correct I did oppose that, and failed to prevail. I see that our article incorrectly still makes that claim. I haven't looked at the New York Times site but I'm willing to bet that we don't characterize the New York Times as warmongering, or pro-terrorist, or irredeemably racist yet I'm sure we could find more articles in support of those positions than there are articles in WUWT that are in support of denialist positions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It is funny how completely lost they are... but then no-one from the outside understands wiki. Thanks for defending me at least from completely wild attacks. I'm curious what you think of the standard conversation: "X has done terrible things" "can you point me at any of those things" "why should I do your work for you?". It seems they have fixed ideas in their heads, but very little in the way of facts to back up their rock-hard opinions. You might (or quite possibly might not) find https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/into-the-bucket-of-jellied-eels/ and https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/ of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed draft for your consideration

Hi, Sphilbrick. I've been waiting for three months at Talk:Foundation_Capital for an editor to review my proposed draft. The draft is only about 5 paragraphs long and cleans up a lot of unsourced overt promotion. After waiting three months, I finally put it in myself only to be reverted, because I am not a volunteer. Can I bug you to review the draft? Sangatfoundationcap (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sangatfoundationcap, sorry, I mostly specialize in copyright issues, and do not do reviews.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for NIDA (political party)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of NIDA (political party). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ― Ætoms ^[talk] 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ætoms, Restored S Philbrick(Talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

HELP

Its the person who created Chatapedia, Chatapedia is NOT a test page and is related to a topic.

Hell no please at 16/01/2021 (3.26pm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell no please (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hell no please: Talk page stalker btw. I would suggest you see WP:NOTABILITY. I'm afraid that it does not seem notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. When I looked up Chatapedia, it had 0 followers on any social media. That means that it is likely not notable. For the rules of whether something is notable enough to be included, I recommend you see WP:GNG. Thanks. Steve M (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hell no please, It is clearly something you made up. The content even claimed "I am the creator of this page and this is a test article!" it's not remotely ready for main space. Use the sandbox for something like that. I'm not even sure that it qualifies as an acceptable sandbox, but if it belongs anywhere it belongs in a sandbox. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hell no please, Please visit Wikipedia:Teahouse. Editors there can help you understand what is needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – Hell no please, have you looked at any of the Welcome stuff, or attempts to help you, or warnings, that I and others have left on your Talk page? I am worried that you are not really understanding what Wikipedia is and how to edit it – things like your "Chatapedia" article do not help give the impression that you get it. Have you looked at the WP:TEAHOUSE? I do recommend it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

im going to wait now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell no please (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicola De Maria

Hello! Would you consider restoring Nicola De Maria? It was G5'd as sock product. After seeing it listed at COIN, I vaguely remember checking it (he meets WP:NARTIST) and I think I also made a few edits to it. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I tried looking at it so I could intelligently comment, was was unable to view it. Not sure why. I'll try again tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I temporarily restored it to check out your assertions. Most of the edits were made by the editor who has been banned. the most significant edit by someone other than the original editor is the use of refill to convert references, so while important it's not substantive addition to the content of the main article. That edit wasn't made by you.

I'll leave it undeleted for the moment to give you a chance to look to see if you can refresh your recollection, but I'm inclined to think that it ought to be deleted. If you would like me to email you the contents (or you can capture them if it hasn't been deleted by somebody else in the meantime) I think you are permitted to use that information to write your own article although it ought to be in your own words, as copyright exists even before deleted articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thank you for the undeletion! I had a hunch about this one. A little sleuthing turned up multiple museum collections and an entry in Larousse, as well as the existing claim of being in the Venice Biennale. Notability is satisfied; is it good as is, or does it need to be proceduraly deleted for being sock product,then recreated? Re: User:Williamsdoritios, I am still scratching my head about that, as the art-related articles they made, while sloppy, were quite good. Possibly (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I confess I'm not entirely sure what the community consensus is regarding next steps. I am sympathetic to those who have said that if an article is decently written, the subject of the article is notable, and the content would be a a benefit to our readership, it seems counterproductive to decide to delete it. On the other hand, I am equally sympathetic to the fact that we do have problem users, and if the user has violated policies to the extent that they receive a block or a ban, that means by definition, that the community has decided that we don't want contributions from that editor (until such time as they cure the problem). Stating that someone has been banned and cannot contribute in any way, and then decided to keep an article that they added in violation of the rules is essentially sending the message that we aren't serious when we say they are blocked or banned — we are simply encouraging them to become sock puppets. I think the latter argument is very strong and would prefer deletion and re-creation by a different editor, but I know some people feel strongly that this is not the right approach. As I said I don't know where the community consensus is that I'm not sure the best way to determine it. I know it's been discussed, and maybe a TPS can remind us where such a discussion has taken place. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, pinging Bri both as a courtesy, and for thoughts about the issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I don't think there is a consensus on it. I know that different admins treat it differently; I got hauled to ANI (under my previous username) for tagging G5-eligible articles a while back. The discussion does mention that G5 says "can" rather than "must" be deleted. Possibly (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, Thanks for linking to that ANI discussion. I may or may not have seen that specific discussion, but I notice a number of extremely experienced editors almost all of whom I have enormous respect for, on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, I have a lot of things on my plate so I'm going to take chicken way out and do nothingfurther. My preference would be to delete it and start over — I see that discussion was closed but while David Eppstein had a closing comment, I don't see evidence that a clear consensus has been reached. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sphilbrick, Possibly, it happens that this is a topic I know something about. De Maria was the only one of the Transavanguardia artists we didn't have a page on, until this perfectly awful one was created. I'd been intending to do something about it (there are plenty of solid WP:RS to draw on, starting with GroveArt and Treccani), but was already in a dispute with the sock editor at Achille Bonito Oliva. For what it's worth, my suggestion would be to re-delete the sock version, so that either Possibly or I can make a clean start on a properly-sourced article. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I've added about a half dozen sources. I also just found this, which links to more. Is there really any point in deleting this, when we can jut improve it as it is? It seems just punitive. Apologies if this is not the right place to discuss this. Shall we move to the article talk page? Whatever you decide re:deletion is fine with me, but please keep the many sources I tracked down in any future versions of the article. Possibly (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

🤔

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.

I responded via email.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that the writing you removed were copied from a different wikipedia article itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Armenia&oldid=1001615092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor of Emperors Armenia (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Emperor of Emperors Armenia, Please remember to identify the source of the material in your edit when copying within Wikipedia.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding a link to the source and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. It is not too late to add the attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Repairing_insufficient_attribution which explains how to do so.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Emperor of Emperors Armenia Just to affirm the advice of User:Sphilbrick. If you copy within Wikipedia, it still needs an attribution. Typically, I put in the edit summary the following form: "Text and references copied from Article to Receiver. See former article's history for a list of contributors." I also create an "Attribution" section on the articles' talk pages. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Normal Mapping

The contents you removed citing copyright of https://joshmayorga.net/blog/3d-effects/delve-into-normal-bump-mapping/ were originally added by me at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normal_mapping&oldid=726751166 in 2016 and copied by this website in 2017. So Please do not entertain any copyright claims by this person.