User talk:Sphilbrick

I will be in various cities between now and 10 April, some with internet access, but hard to predict now when or if I will be online until the Final Four is over.

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Duck

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Did you know that my homage to an editor we like appeared on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC

List of Adaalat episodes

Sorry to have tagged the article and gotten it deleted. But a similar article is kept now post the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of C.I.D. episodes (3rd nomination). Would you please undelete this one too? Am asking you to do this as DRV's first step is to request the acting admin to undelete the subject article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have limited access to Wikipedia today, so have restored it, which should not be construed as an opinion whether this should be kept, simply restoring so it can be reconsidered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well... my opinion is that it should be deleted. But the new consensus says otherwise. I have also removed the speedy deletion tag that i had added on it. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look closely, but it seemed to be a close call. Thanks for the update.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the clerk team!

Hi Sphilbrick. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Again, welcome! Regards, Rschen7754 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Some recent PRODs

Hello Sphilbrick. Today you deleted some articles nominated through the Proposed Deletion process:

1. . G-5, Islamabad
2. . G-6, Islamabad
3. . F-6, Islamabad
4. . F-7, Islamabad
5. . F-8, Islamabad
6. . F-10, Islamabad

I have some queries related to these actions. If I remember correctly all of these PRODs were contested but were repeatedly PRODed by IP editor using the same range used by LanguageXpert, the same reason for which I asked semi-protection but that didn't happen. My mistake here was that I didn't add the "Old prod full" tag on the talk page which probably would have made it easier for you or any other patrolling admin to know that PROD was challenged. But besides that as much as I remember the last PROD tag was added two days ago, so

a). wasn't it supposed to run for another five days?

b). Also the reason presented for deletion, is it a valid reason for deletion? (There were two concerns "Not a important place" and "too short article") specially about an article about a geographical place? I haven't seen an article about a place, whose existence is verified getting deleted. The last thing I was expecting was a redirect/merge to its parent sub division .i.e. Islamabad, in fact I might have done that myself if I couldn't improve them any further.

c). And one last thing, though I don't find it being said anywhere at Wikipedia:PROD but I am still curious that aren't admins who consider deletion of these articles, supposed to verify the claim/reason for deletion presented by the nominator?

I also would like to note here that I am not asking for these articles to be restored, just want to improve my understanding of the PROD and deletion process. -- SMS ^Talk 17:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the history.

I found the articles in a category, which included Prods dated 6 February. I picked that cat to work on because it was after the seven days.

In addition the article had a notice:

This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.

I made the reasonable assumption that the PROD was ripe, and uncontested.

I've now looked at the history a little closer, and I see it was contested, by you, and the contestation undone. It is a failure of process that this left the article in the category.

Having said that, while towns are deemed notable, administrative sectors are not AFAIK. I doubt it would survive AfD, but of course PROD isn't AfD. I think it is a waste of time to restore, then delete after an AfD, but I think process is important, and it looks like process wasn't handled correctly. If you want me to restore them I will. I should also look into why the declination did not remove them from the cat, but to be honest, I have a number of things on my to-do, and will probably not, unless I see more examples of problems. Arguably, I should inquire somewhere to find out why your declination could be reverted without leaving any indication that there was a contestation of the prod; however, you might consider asking that question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. No I don't want them to be restored, but I do plan to rewrite them in future. Besides there are a number of redirects left that you may like to delete. -- SMS ^Talk 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

your recent inquiry

{{ygm}} NE Ent 01:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Template merge discussion

Over at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 17#Template:Infobox basketball biography there is a discssuin to, among other things, merge Template:Infobox WNBA biography into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Personally I think this is the right move long-term, but want to be sure the right adjustments are made in the short run. If you are interested, please add your two cents. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikster2, for the heads up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Betty Jaynes (basketball)

I saw her listed on the recent deaths page, and though she was notable and interesting (always a good combination!). Plus I want to start a wider range of articles; for the past few years I have edited/created almost exclusively related to association football but that wasn't the case when I first joined (I initially covered politics, literature, music, other biographies etc.) GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response User:GiantSnowman. She was a very interesting woman. I got to know Betty a little bit over the last few years, and when I last saw her, in New Orleans, she had an extended conversation with my wife, who was a four sport athlete. I'm slightly annoyed at myself, because creating her biography was on my mental to-do list, which I wish I had done while she was alive.

If you have any interest in women's basketball, I'll invite you to the Women's basketball task force, small group with a lot to do. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I could help out. I've joined up to the Women's basketball task force and added it to my watchlist; you might wish to create a 'requested article' list (similar to this) - as I know little about the sport that would be extremely helpful. GiantSnowman 13:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I will add one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - I take it WBNA players are notable per WP:ATHLETE? GiantSnowman 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read that guideline in some time (until now). I usually make sure that any article I start can be justified via GNG. However, glancing at it, I see the WNBA specifically listed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Great; ATHLETE is always a great place to start, to give you comfort in creating an article while bringing up to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Marist Red Foxes [women's basketball]

This appears to be an article on the University athletic programme as a whole, not just the women's basketball team, so unsure why you moved it? GiantSnowman 18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A mistake. I was creating a list of red links, but when I did so, Marist showed up as a blue link. With my current tunnel vision, forgetting that there is a world outside wbb, I saw that we did have an article on the Marist Red Foxes, and moved it, without looking closely and seeing it was more general.

I moved it back, and trust that double redirect bots will clean up my mess?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom title

Is that a dash, an ndash or an emdash? NE Ent 03:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I confess, I have an unhealthy love of the emdash:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a love of correct titles, never mind what dash. Are we talking about Kevin? There should be no second name in the title, because it should not matter who is the victim whom he addressed. But I will not go to that war and make it "unclean" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt, I share a love of correct titles. I did think about some options, including just calling it Kevin Gorman. Were I to bring such a case, I would likely label it that way. Were I asked for my opinion about a good case name, that is likely to be my recommendation.

However, I was acting in my capacity as a clerk. I don't have a lot of experience—in fact, that is my only action as a clerk. While I am still learning, I think I know that a clerk has to be scrupulously neutral. I saw the discussion about the tense of the word, but I decided that any form of "attack" failed the neutrality. I did consider removing Eric's name, but user:Giano included it, and I did not think that inclusion of a bare name, without qualification, violated neutrality, so I opted to make the smallest edit I could, while addressing the problem. I thought that Giano might object if I removed Eric's name, and I did not think I had a sufficient defense to such a concern, so I left it.

We all should learn from our mistakes. In retrospect, I wish I had given Giano a heads-up at the same time he made the edit. There is no way he could be expected to know that it was an action taken by a clerk, and he may have assumed it was just some busy-body interfering (as opposed to an "official" busybody:) Had I done that, we might have had a conversation about whether the action was the best course, rather than an edit war that ended badly.

I do thank-you for weighing in—this discussion has helped me think through some issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thoughtful answer. I understand that clerk function is one thing, missing people another, - look for sorrow on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hello S PHILBRICK, I would like to upload the algorithm at page 6 of the article that you can find at this address: http://thyca.org/download/document/409/DTCguidelines.pdf. I think it would be helpful for the wikipedia article on thyroid nodules. Do you think it is possible? Thank youLuigi Albert Maria (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Luigi Albert Maria, the short answer is no, but read on.

There is a copyright symbol in the upper left. (Although it would be subject to copyright even without that symbol) Technically, material licensed with an acceptable license such as cc-by-sa-3.0 is subject to copyright, but unless we see an explicit template or wording identifying that the is a Creative Commons license,w e have to assume there is not.

I wanted to see the diagram, because I thought there might be a chance that it qualifies as ineligible for copyright, but that does not seem to be the case.

However, it is very common for researchers to be interested in wide dissemination of their work, and they might be happy to provide a license for the diagram.

The gory details are at Donating copyrighted materials. However, an example of a permission form can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I see that the author has provided an email address.

One important point of caution - the author has published this in a journal, so very likely has transferred copyright to the Journal. (In fact the copyright owner is not one of the authors, so may be associated with the Journal).If that is not the case, we can accept permission from the author, but we will need a release from the Journal.

However, it may make most sense to start by contacting the author, who has the most incentive to help arrange for permission.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed answer, I will see if it's worth doing all this process! Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope it will be, and I will be happy to help, although I will be away for a few days starting tomorrow. I'd had success asking for people to donate photgrpahs. Doesn't alwys work, but it has several times.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

List of 3D animation software

Could you restore it, please? The PROD has been belatedly contested here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94  Done (Sorry about the timing, I just got home from a trip.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, it wasn't urgent. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Ux

Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Ux has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Universiade

Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Universiade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

West Sound (AM) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Sound (AM). Since you had some involvement with the West Sound (AM) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TJRC (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

This looks worse than it is but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the effort. I would have said it on the AN page but some fool semi protected it as though that would really stop me if I wanted to post there. I could say it wasn't me, but I told AGK the accounts he blocked accusing of being me or the IP that Jehochman accused of being me weren't and they didn't believe me so I'm not going to bother. I will say this, some people on here will literally stop at nothing to get rid of me. Frankly this project is just not that big of a deal to me. I have a six figure income job, multiple degrees, a family, a house, a car and a neurotic dog who tries to hump the cat on a regular basis. I just don't need this project for validation in my life. I edited because I enjoyed doing it and I felt like I was contributing to something that mattered. I don't feel that way anymore. Wikipedia is a joke, its a waste of time, and worse of all, it will fail because of people like the ones I have been trying to do something about that everyone else want to protect. BTW, this username isn't as random as it appears. Say it out loud, slowly and letter by letter. OU8124URA* (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you had a lot to offer, but something went wrong. I wish I could fix it, but that's not realistic in the short term. Longer term, maybe.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I created several hundred articles over a done, 450, 000 edits, over a dozen featured...but because I think admins should be held accountable when they screw up and because I think Arbcom is a joke, I was branded for life. Oh well, its not like this place needs any help, all the articles are written and there are more than enough people to do all the work (sarcasm intended). Frankly I don't see Wikipedia lasting more than a couple more years before so many people have been run off and there are too few admins to maintain the balance (looking at the backlog at SPI I would say its already happeneing). OU8124URA* (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jean Simmons

There is an IP vandalizing her article. It was semi-protected for 24 hours but as soon as it ended, the IP came back removing sourced material and putting in deliberate errors. Can this page be protected for a month at least? Thank you. I put this up on the original admin's talk page too but I'm not sure when he'll be back....William 14:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. When the IP originally edited out the part about Simmons and her husband Stewart Granger becoming United States naturalized citizens, I decided to check for a source. Maybe the IP was right. But with the help of Google News Archive I found a news article confirming it. So I restored the bit to the article and added a IC referencing the article I discovered. The IP then took that out two times before the page was page protected the first time. After the page protection came off, the IP didn't just remove the part about Simmons naturalization but changed when she and Granger got divorced and removed mention of her marrying Richard Brooks. I restored the article again plus added another IC with a article stating when Simmons and Granger got divorced. A month's protection will hopefully send this vandal on his way.

I once read that the reason registration isn't required, is that it makes the detection of vandals easier. Namely that IPs do more vandalism than registered users. User Carrite on her User page has a funny comment '"Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." Cheers!...William 15:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IPs do have a higher percentage rate for vandalism, but it is still well under half, so based on pure odds, a random IP edit is probably not vandalism. In fact, I'm not convinced the edits you reverted were vandalism, in the sense of deliberate errors. My guess is that they either truly believe it isn't true, or believe it should not be mentioned for some reason. However, if they are unwilling to explain via edit summaries and/or edits to the talk page, it is acceptable to revert. I hope they will create an account and/or contribute an explanation via the article talk page. Perhaps they have a good reason we are missing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I've done most of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brianis19 articles 21 through 40, so please refresh your page to ensure you don't duplicate my work. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

?? Did you have an edit conflict, or is this a heads up to make sure I don't have one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I had one; that's when I noticed you were working on the same section. I am going to stop for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You've done a lot! I hadn't known about the working template - I'm on pause now with some other things to do, if I return, I'll try to use the template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

The average wait time for Edit Requests is apparently 26 hours. Can't we just merge Request Edits into the same queue? This way we can consolidate queues into a few number so they are easier to manage, rather than doing the opposite.

BTW - as you probably remember, I am a frequent COI contributor/Request Edit user/ I actually created a lot of our Request Edit templates. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know you. Occupied at the moment, will respond as soon as I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As you are well aware, we can be a bureaucratic place. This can be both good and bad. I'll confess that handling edit requests is not an area I've concentrated on, I do more work in copyvio and other areas.

I didn't realize, until just this minute, that Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests were two different places. While your suggestion has some merit, I'd like to see if I can learn why we separate them. It may be for a good reason, it may also be for a reason that used to be good but is no more.

I also have to check a couple other things, and will report back shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's one of the things I wanted to check:

some admins keep {{Admin dashboard}} open or at least handy.

Requested edits as well as edit requests are in the list, although I hadn't really thought about the distinction prior to today.

I know that the template code turns certain categories red under certain situations. For example "Attack Pages" and requests for help turn red if there are any.

CSD turns red if the number reaches 100.

I thought there was a limit of 50 for some cats, but I seem to be wrong.

The Requested edit cat registered with me only because it hit triple digits.

My guess is that editors and admins who specialize in working in edit requests are more apt to start with the first cat in the list, which may explain why the last of the four is getting less action.

Before proposing a merger of two cats (which will raise inevitable issues—why these two,why not all four, why not three of four why not...) I'd like to propose one or both of two other changes which may accomplish the real goal of getting the backlog down.

My best option is to add the code to turn the cat red when it exceeds some value. My thinking is that we should start at 50, but after we get it down a bit consider 25 as a better long term value. Another option is to change the order, so that Requested edits is listed before edit requests.

Please share your thoughts while I think through where to open the discussion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Request Edits are one of four items that show up in a specific area of the admin dashboard. The other three turn red when they reach a certain backlog, but Request Edits do not? If that's the case, I see no reason not to make it act just like the others.

You may also be interested in this idea to create an AfC-like wizard for submissions by COIs, in order to improve the quality/format/reviewability of factual corrections, while placing plenty of warnings and discouragements to attempting to write articles where one is unlikely to be neutral.

We should keep in mind that COIs like myself are WP:NORUSH violators. I'm going around begging editors to review my AfC submission because I don't want to wait 30 days in the AfC backlog, but it would be the same wait even if I didn't have a COI. All our queues are backlogged. We should expect no different here. But we should have the process and criteria as developed as other queues and the backlog not ridiculous (I've seen ones 6 months old). CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly (re turning red). The attack and help queues turn red. I thought one or more of the edit request queues turned red, but I was wrong. However, I plan to propose it. I will also check out the wizard proposal. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to find some time to do something tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to comment without understanding what it looks like, but I wouldn't escalate COI requests to the same urgency as... what I think are the types of things you are saying flash red. I remember a time where the Request Edit queue was 1-3 items, so there was never a need to manage it much before. Awareness/recruiting is necessary for any new or growing process, as are processes, structure, and coding. + it is easy to get editors riled up over whether they love/hate paid editing, but much more difficult to find ones that will put in the hours of hard-work and elbow grease to find meaningful (even if mediocre/incremental) solutions.

I did about 30 Request Edits a while back and felt it really gave me perspective. First it was a very draining experience, because so many were unhappy I didn't make the edits they wanted. Second, after droning over 10 poor, promotional, BS requests, I assumed the 11th was also bad, even if it wasn't actually - the same assumption that is often applied to me. It's a bad reflection on my character that so many editors AGFd for so long even when I gave them so many reasons not to, yet I can't seem to bring myself to AGF as hard as they did.

Anyways, if User:DESiegel does successfully create a policy/guide on how company articles should be, what is and isn't promotional and so on, that would also have the effect of providing a guide for Request Edits, because a lot of editors don't have the confidence to know which edits to accept and often do it wrong - adding promotion or failing to remove poorly sourced controversies. CorporateM (Talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right that dealing with COIs may benefit from experienced editors more so than other areas, but I also think it would be against Wikipedia's principles to actually prohibit in-experienced editors on the basis that they are more likely to get it wrong. Anyways, I'm glad you brought up the general issue - let me know if there is any way I can help, without getting too involved in such a way that may seem inappropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Heading out of town for a couple days, will mull this over and come back with some thoughts. I appreciate your input, as it is invaluable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Greetings. I am Roc Ordman, a nutrition professor at Beloit College. My students are required to edit wiki pages on nutrition for my class, adding key discoveries published recently in peer-reviewed nutrition journals that they cite during their wiki editing. I hope I may call on you for assistance as they try to get their edits posted on wikipedia pages. Here is the link to what they are working on this term: http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Ordman/classes/cls/c12701wiki/wikitopics.html Thanks, Roc Rocordman (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rocordman, are you familiar with Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects? It contains some helpful advice for teaches whoo wish to use Wikipedia as part of a class. this is highly encouraged, but some such efforts don't go well, so we've provided some advice to help the process.

I am aware of it but not an active participant. I'm curious why you contacted me. I do like to be helpful, although I will have some time challenges over the next four weeks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rokkaku Yoshiharu

Hello, I'd like to know more about why the article Rokkaku Yoshiharu was deleted. I saw the reason given as "unambiguous copyright infringement", but was it necessary to delete it? I worked on it at some point, and I can assure you, I have never plagiarized. So, I have 3 questions:

• If some editor had recently plagiarized another wiki-site, then couldn't the article have been reverted to an earlier, acceptable state?
• Or if not, why couldn't the plagiarized text have been deleted, leaving only a stub?
• If not, then when I am ready to write an article on the same name from scratch, how do I do this when the article has been deleted?

- Boneyard90 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Boneyard90, regarding your first question, that often happens, and yes, we can revert to an earlier version. Sometimes that is missed, so it is good to ask. However, I checked the initial version, created in 2006, and it is a close paraphrase of this site.

As for cleaning, that is something we do when it can be done while still leaving something of substance. However, most of the content is a paraphrase, I only see a sentence or two, that would survive, which wouldn't make a suitable stub.

It also doesn't have a single reference. While that used to be acceptable, it isn't any more, so if you create a new article, please make sure you include some references.

As for recreating, you are welcome to do so. Please make sure to start in a userspace page, or in the new Draft space, and make sure it is at least minimally acceptable, with some references, then move it to Rokkaku Yoshiharu.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the response. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

g12

I saw you deleted one of my g12 noms. That user has been creating a large number of articles, all copied from that same source. I made a post on ANI, and he seems to have stopped since I started nominating his articles, but it may require some intervention. also there may be a WP:CIR issue, with some templates he has created that seem malformed, but I am not an expert on templates, so I have not taken any action on those. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 I deleted a number of items today. Can you identify which one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Selsky&action=edit&redlink=1 is the one I was referring to. Looks like Diannaa got to the rest. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I found one that had been missed, gone now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Parks and Rec s6 copyvios

Hi Sphilbrick. I just wanted you to be aware that Brianis19 is possibly socking, editing as User:Briguy 21. Figured you should know, as you were more involved in the incident than I. It does not appear that the edits are the same, but in and of itself, socking should not be done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but sock detection is one of my weak points. I doubt I will be helpful, so you might want to share this with someone else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just making you aware, as you were involved in that previous, separate investigation. I'd say, just be aware of the pages they frequented, if you can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you could identify the previous investigation. The name is not ringing a bell, nor does Parks and Rec s6 mean anything to me, so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! This investigation for copyright investigations. You posted on my talk page regarding the users edits on Parks and Recreation (season 6). I just wanted you to know that a user named Briguy21 edited that page today, and it bears a very similar resemblance to the user that got blocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's embarrassing. Thanks. Now I remember you. 'll look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at that editor. You might be right that it is the same one. I didn't see any sign of copyvio edits. That doesn't mean it is OK to sock, but it reduces the concern.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianis19. Also on a separate request, I was wondering if you might be able to protect a page for me? I was hoping you could add semi protection to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The request is two-fold: the film is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the films garner high page views and are very susceptible to vandalism. This film premiered last night, and will be releasing shortly, so given experience, the IP vandals will be out in full force. I am hoping to prevent that before it starts (as has been done on recent MCU films before their release). I know protections should not be punitive, but these edits will prevent the hard working editors like myself, from adequately adding the necessary info for when it releases. The second reason, is a sequel date was revealed yesterday as well, so that will most likely bring in more vandals. I hope you will make this request. If I may suggest, protection through the end of April should be sufficient. If you aren't willing to go with semiprotection, could pending changes protection be an option? Thanks for that consideration. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the SPI. Regarding protection, the word you are looking for is pre-emptive. Admins are reluctant to protect absent actual evidence of vandalism. I think it happens on rare occasions, but very rare. I glanced, and see a couple instances, but not many. I added it to my watch list, and if I see some, I'll try to be quick on the trigger. Ping me if I miss it. I should be online a fair amount the next few days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome for the SPI. And thank you for the watch. I think we may be good for now. And I will give you a ping if I feel it is getting bad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For your information regarding: Association for Asian Performance

Hi there, I noticed you had deleted that article a while ago for being a copyright violation (the article you deleted was not created or edited by me). I am creating articles related to the USA recently, so I noticed this didn't have an article so I made one. I just wanted to inform you that a new article is up there. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 10:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sintaku Thanks for the heads up. Looks OK so far although you might want to look at the last sentence for awkward wording. (The use of the word "award" as a verb and a noun in close proximity.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it somewhat, it is a bit hard since I don't know if they are the ones who created the award or are one of the people who are involved in giving the award. Thanks. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Women's Basketball Pages

As a quick heads up, I am currently working on creating a season page for each automatic qualifier that may not have one created yet. It will take a bit of time, but I hope to finish two or three a day. If I'm able to do so, I will have all the automatic qualifiers done before the Women's Tournament starts next Saturday. After finishing the automatic qualifiers, I will work on creating pages for the other NCAA Tourney teams that don't have one. When that is finished, I will move on to the WNIT teams, and finally the WBI teams. In the end I will create a page for every team, regardless or whether or not they make the post-season, but the teams in the post-season are currently my main focus. The majority of the others won't have their pages created until after the NCAA Tourney is complete. Ironically I had already created pages for Prairie View A&M and Texas Southern, and one of those two teams will emerge as the SWAC Champion this season. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in awe. (I have some work challenges, and hope to be contributing more soon.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Uterus and vagina no captions.png

When deleting files as F8, please first make sure that all revisions are on Commons, as F8 only applies to those revisions which have been copied to Commons. The easiest way to copy old revisions of a file is to use http://tools.wmflabs.org/magog/oldver.php which copies over old revisions automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I try to be through, and sometimes it seems I am more than thorough , but I guess not this time. There were roughly 30 files all nominated (I thought) by the same editor. I painstakingly checked every one of the first 10, then spot checked several more, but it seemed obvious that the editor had copied all over first. The odd thing is, I though this was one I checked, because it didn't seem like the others. I must be wrong. Thanks for the link to the file mover, although I thought they had all been moved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Surely you mean "removing" and not "deleting" here[1], right? Just for future reference, since all requests are archived. Risker (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Risker, I followed clerk procedures specifically the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#How_to_action which specifically suggests the language I used. I'll be happy to raise the question to see if our language should be tweaked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Risker,I've edited the process pages to reflect the better wording. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Minor_tweaks_to_wording_-_edit_summary.2C_and_list_order the talk page for the discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration requests page

I find it hard to find my way about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and the cases. For instance, the case concerning AGK has recently been declined, but how can one find the record of that? It doesn't appear anywhere on that page, and "Recently closed cases" says there are none. I must be missing something? JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnCD , you can find any declined case recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests. In this specific instance, it is the first item in the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

For editing the page Studley, Inc. I truly appreciate it. You mentioned not having access to a particular book and therefor could not add a reference regarding pioneering real estate market reports. I've actually found a link via Google Books[2] to the exact page that includes that claim, so if that is sufficient I was wondering if you could consider adding that reference to the article when you have time. Thank you again so much for your time and effort. RyLaughlin (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)