User talk:Sphilbrick

Women's Basketball Taskforce Updates

With it now being July, I have made the following changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/US College Division 1. I changed the Group tables season pages to 2014-15. I updated the teams and conferences in the group tables to show new conference affiliations. I reset all the 2014-15 section to be a dash, unless they have already had a page started. My goal is to do 2 pages a day until all the teams get done for the 2014-15 season. If I'm able to, everyone will have their page up and ready before the season starts in November. I also created and updated the conference standings templates for next season, outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12. Those two had already been created. I also changed Clemson Tigers women's basketball page to Clemson Lady Tigers basketball as their Game Notes all show they are the Clemson Lady Tigers basketball team. Bigddan11 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bigddan11. I see that User:Pvmoutside is cleaning up the coaches templates to reflect the new alignments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

All Set Sphilbrick, but for some reason, the Western Athletic Conference doesn't want to cooperate. Looks like a code issue I can't seem to bug out....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Something's messed up, looking at it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Pvmoutside, you removed <noinclude> in this edit. I fixed it, I think.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix....and the invite to women's basketball. I spend my time mostly in other places, but I could look in from time to time....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If anybody knows of any games that need to be filled in, fill free to do so. I've only seen BYU and Dayton with their nonconference schedules listed so far, but I have included the ACC-Big Ten women's basketball challenge games and the Pre-season Tournaments that I am aware of that have the games announced when I'm doing the schedules. All the ACC teams have team pages now, as does most of the A10. I haven't listed any of the known conference games yet, though the conferences have announced whom each team will play, solely because I like to have the actual dates instead of a bunch of TBA's. I've been averaging 3-4 team pages a day instead of 2, so there will be plenty of time to get the schedules filled in before the season starts. Heck, I'll probably be able to copy and paste most of the Big 12 and WAC teams with last years data, just updating the player rosters and altering the schedules as needed, so it'll only take 2-4 days to do the entire Big 12 and WAC teams. Bigddan11 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching some of the the work you are doing, thanks. I assume full schedules are rosters will be available later. You are free to fill them in as they become available, but I find it easier to add when the full schedule is available.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 UMass Minutewomen basketball team has the same problem that Baylor, Texas Southern , and others have had in the info box. It says UMass Minutewomen women's basketball team. I know you learned how to adjust it last year, so I'll leave it to you to ix. And yes, I will fill in the rosters that aren't yet listed when they become available. Chances are it will be whenever their schedule gets updated, but it will all be available before the season starts. Bigddan11 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly how at the moment, but I'll figure it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but it may take some time to propagate, I don't recall, if it isn't fixed tomorrow, I'll check further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not fixed. Discouraging. I'll have to ask for some help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Philadelphia Streets articles

Please explain to me what happens when I request the full text of a deleted article. Do you place it in my sandbox?

I request Cherry Street, Pine Street, Race Street, Snyder Avenue, and Spruce Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which you recently deleted. Feel free to place them in my sandbox, or tell me what is the usual procedure if that is not the usual response.

Also, what about images in Wikimedia Commons? If the blocked user did not create them, then no problem, but I am suspicious of some images used on Philadelphia articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DThomsen8, I'm not fully satisfied that placing in a sandbox is an acceptable procedure. Until that is settled, I'll be happy to email you contents, and ask that you ensure that only material not authored by a banned editor is added to a sandbox. Can we start with one, and see if it is workable? I'll pick Race Street, just because I remember driving on it. I'll look at the images.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I lost power just as I hit send, so if you did not get it, let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not get it, but my fault, my email account has changed. Try again.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

With all the activity on this day, I missed this. Re-sent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Images are in that articles:

• File:Race Street Meetinghouse and Visitors Center from Cherry Street.jpg Looks fine
• File:RaceStreetjpg.jpeg Created by banned uer, so should not be used. If you are in Philly, and want one like it, should be easy to create.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It is going to be a challenge to redo street articles, but I will see what I can do.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What to do with templates written by banned editor

Templates are a different issue from articles, because the template must be replaced with all or substantially all the same content. I am trying to find examples, and will add them here. If you agree this is important and a different issue from articles, perhaps I should put it in Village Pump.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how I would find templates already speedy deleted for reason G5. Perhaps only Administrators have access to that.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point, I cannot address it at the moment, but I will try to later today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have much to say. I agree that a template has limited scope for originality, but while that might allow for keeping templates created by a banned user, it might also argue that it can be deleted as recreated, because it doesn't create a copyright problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#Templates written by banned editor.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find the names of the ones I deleted by going to the deletion log and looking for 2 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Club music related to EDM?

But there's no source anywhere for "club music" related to EDM. Can you figure it out? 183.171.160.111 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocean warming sentence

Hi, Thanks for input at talk GW; I just posted draft v 4 below your comment. Part of your comment was resolved in the new version and part was not. I would encourage you to relocate your comment below v 4 and modify it to just focus on the part where there isn't yet agreement. That way, we can all stay the most organized, and any one who hasn't been following the play by play can really easily follow along. Up to you, of course. Thanks for the input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy First, I want to emphasize that I know you are doing the heavy lifting.

I found it was taking a fair amount of time to edit what is now a long section, so I created a new section. If there's another approach, (I considered adding a convenience break), I don't feel strongly either way. Feel free to move my comment around if it helps the organization.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the expression of trust! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

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

Talk page mayhem (mine, that is)

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

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

• Actually asked

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

• Question I asked Nigelj and would like to ask you also

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

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

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

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your comment. I saw the note about an unanswered question on Nigel's page, so went back to look. Didn't immediately see it, but got distracted (sorry, there's a lot going on). To answer the question, yes, dropping ACC would resolve my concern about that issue, although as you noted, it may be others who feel stronger. I'll note, hopefully in passing, that there was a suggestion that the human induced warming is more than 100% of the total. Without either accepting or rejecting that number, I'll note it doesn't matter. Many things are made up of constituents, and some of the constituents may be positive or negative contributors. One should not define the "thing" as made up of a subset of constituents, simply because that subset mat approximate 100% of the total.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, personally I stopped trying to learn about [{Attribution of climate change]] with IPCC AR4's >90% certainty/liklihood, and AR5's >95% certainty/liklihood that "most" is to blame on humans. Except for reading often that we'd be on our way to glacial period were it not for humans, I haven't attempted to learn any more details what the sources say on human/nonhuman causes. I think our main article GW can approach it that way, and point to the subarticle [{Attribution of climate change]] for more details, assuming eds more knowledable than I on that particular component are taking good care of that subarticle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

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

The timing is horrible, although it may never be good. I'm trying to do some things with templates, and either need to bite the bullet and learn Lua coding or abandon it. If I jump into learning coding, it will be a big time suck; as you know, one cannot casually discuss climate issues, or to put it differently, on can, but not effectively. I think that climate science is far more advanced than many skeptics concede, but not as advanced as some of the adherents think. There are too many moving parts, so to speak. I think this had led some to get ahead of themselves (often not actual climate scientists). When challenged on their models, they have been reticent to say how much they do not know, and leave the impression the models are better than they actually are. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the truth will eventually come out, but it will take many years. I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project,. I think they will find that their climate sensitivities were too high.

Some time in the future, we may revisit this article as it is written now, and some will look at how various editors shaped to work it. My goal is to be proud of my very limited contributions, and even if the facts turn out to be different than my best guesses, I want the article to reflect what is known at the time. It doesn't meet that standard at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Whenever you say "I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project" I'd encourage a bit more specificity; Earth's energy balance doesn't vary nearly as much as Global Mean Surface Temperature, and how fast any particular metric of temp goes up may not be as important overall as how many extra units of energy are in the system overall. As for the rest, whatever time you can offer making today's article excellent is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurston

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

And why are you telling me?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Because you delete the page!

Ah, you mean Talk:Thurston (Webseries). That's a talk page and the article page is gone. It is routine to remove the talk page. I see now you are trying to write an article on a talk page. That's not the place for an article.

See Wikipedia:My_First_Article

By the way, I've deleted over 100 pages today, and don't memorize their names, which is why I asked. I had no idea you were inquiring about a deleted page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I restored it to Draft:Thurston (Webseries)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Economic graph

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

Will try to look at it soon, but have a couple items to finish first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally understandable. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Turns out it is now easy.  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kate Lambert email dates

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

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

User Prosfilaes

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

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

I will look into it shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the Rambling Man's page, it's hard to see in the history, since it's a template in a template, but at the time he made those changes, the template said "Accidents with more then 50 fatalities are italicized". He then removed the italics from accidents with more than 50 fatalities. I've explained this elsewhere, like on the talk page of the template, but he has been more interested in accusing me of personal attacks then listening to the complaints about content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't fully absorbed all the edits to put them in context, but I'll start with one general observation, and follow with a more specific comment about the template. My general observation is that all editors should think twice (or more) before accusing someone else of lying or even committing falsehoods. It does happen, but nine time out of ten, it turns out to be an error, a misunderstanding, an understandable difference of opinion regarding a definition, a misreading of the history, a misreading of a source, etc, and I could go on. A lie requires not just that the claim be false, but you have evidence that the editor knew it was false. This is quite rare, and inaccurate accusations simply increase the drama, and reduce the possibility of reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome. I'll change gears and talk about the template next.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that someone has decided that there is a convention for for the presentation of items in an aviation template, specifically to use non-italics for incidents with fewer than 50 deaths, and italics for 50 or more. I'll start with a question—is this distinction for the benefit of readers or editors? I assume readers, as there are better way to accomplish the goals if the intention is to help editors.

My next question is how are readers supposed to know this? User:Prosfilaes, you said, So long as this page says "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics", incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths should be shown in italics, but I do not see that language. I checked some history, in case it was recently removed. Where is it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

SP, there was this talk page discussion[7], which was judged a consensus[8] to change the templates, but another editor decided to reopen the discussion (fine. Consensus can change) but also edited the template here [9]- that's why the 50 deaths wasn't there and then was there again, and the individual yearly template[10]. Another administrator didn't think the last two steps were wise. The template has been reverted, both the format page and the individual years, while the discussion continues.

Whatever the template discussion is, Prosfilaes has made a barrage of personal attacks against me. That violates WP:CIVIL. An editors feelings about any subject don't give him a right to violate it....William 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, looking now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

He may not have been trying to introduce falsehoods, but he was doing so, and when I pointed it out to him, all he did was keep on doing what he was doing. When I posted on Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982, he chose not to respond. If he wants me to focus on content, he should respond when other people are trying to have content-based discussions. I'm not fighting the big issue; I was making sure that Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982 didn't make false claims. I did not know where the footnote was from, all I knew is that it needed to go away, and I had no interest in supporting this change.

I may have used a better choice of words, but I'd like William to take the time to read edit messages for reasons besides to take offense at them. I'd also like him to let sleeping dogs lie; this issue was dead four days before he decided to use a canned template in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=618276551&oldid=617751382 to accuse me of personal attacks. I also resent getting complaints about personal attacks when someone posts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=617750639&oldid=608489003 to my talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SP, he's still accusing me above after you made your ruling. A block is needed because this editor will not Drop the stick otherwise....William 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I did not make a "ruling". I'm just another editor, trying to help defuse a disagreement. However, User:Prosfilaes, I'm disappointed that you continue to claim that William was introducing falsehoods. Both of you have been around long enough to see what happens in disputes. It might start with a small difference of opinion, but positions get entrenched, words are used that shouldn't be used, and then each side focuses on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. William, you are so upset about the personal attack, that you saw the second clause of the opening sentence, and missed the first one. Yes, the second phrase continues the assertion, but reread the first part. As I said before a lie is not just an error but a deliberate error. Prosfilaes has conceded it wasn't intentional. Please take that as a small step in the right direction. It would have been a better step had it not been followed by the second clause, but it is some progress. Prosfilaes, you note that you commented at the template talk page and William did not respond. To the extent that you made a content comment in the body of the post, you think William should have responded, but I want you to realize that you were making statements interpreted as personal attacks. When someone is being personally attacked, it is hard to concentrate on content. You need to clear that issue first. You wanted William to notice that his edits were inconsistent with the language on the template, but instead of wording it that way you start with Don't add lies to this page. You can't seriously expect anyone to read on calmly and respond. I'm happy William did NOT respond there, as it would likely have been suboptimal. I thank William for his restraint. Prosfilaes, I think you should edit the header, as it does constitute a personal attack. If you don't I will, but it would be better coming form you.

Are the two of you old enough to remember a classic SNL sketch involving a Jane Curtin/Dan Akroyd mock debate, in which Dan opens with Jane, you ignorant slut. I don't remember what follows, but that's the point. When something that strong is used, it drowns out everything else. Prosfilaes, please note what happened. You responded to me with a couple paragraphs. William saw five words, and nothing else. I'm trying to point that you did make a concession, and you might be disappointed that it wasn't seen, but it wasn't seen because you repeated the personal attack. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

False is not a personal attack. It's a statement about content. The template, after William was done editing it, made claims that were universally agreed upon to be false. After this encounter, I have no idea how to explain to him that his edits were factually wrong without getting accused of making a personal attack. He seems still to have no idea that the template was factually incorrect.

I have changed lies to factually incorrect. I'll note that he has made no effort to change "read this[11] instead of undoing edits you don't know." on my talk page, which is why him dumping templates telling me to comment on content on my talk page is so grating.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. As I have tried to make clear, the term "lie" is a very strong word, and is a personal attack. I am happy you changed it. I hope William is as well, but I obviously cannot speak for him. --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoring AFC pages

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

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry about that. It is part of my intended process to do that every time. However, I obviously missed some. I wonder how hard it would be to make it part of the template placement process? I looked into auto-adding signatures, but was rebuffed. It would also be nice to auto-add a ping template, but my attempts to rewrite the templates in preparation to do that were also dashed. I confess I am a bit frustrated at the moment, that tasks best done by computers are not done, and worse, attempts to do so are discouraged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can ping IPs. But talking about automation, it could probably be done with a java script. A similar idea to the AFC review script, but triggered by the restore page could proceed to remove the db-g13 template. They are almost always on the first line. Or perhaps an edit filter could issue a prompt as a warning that it should be done, or a different edit filter could alert some one who is deleting a page less than a day after it was restored to consider the undelete, or what I do, look for the red links on WP:REFUND Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I started thinking about how one would write a script to access the article and remove the template, which sounded tricky. It occurred to me it would be easier and cleaner if it was an option at the restore step, but I don't see how to access that process, so I raised the question at Wikipedia:Vpt#Improve_restore_functionality. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You have asked the right question there. It has also happened to me that a page I restored gets very speedily deleted again! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I restored an image yesterday, went to remove the CSD template within 30 seconds of the restoration and it was gone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move contrary to RM result

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

@In ictu oculi: How very odd, I was recently burned by accepting someone's claim it was uncontroversial, so I made a point of checking this one. Must have read too quickly. Who requested it, I can't see how to tell?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. On past form I think it's this, but there may have been a template request prior/post this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

CSD nomination of Harshhussey articles

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

Administrator Orlady again

Time to close this for now. Some progress made, although maybe that's my optimism fooling me.

She conducted a personal attack here[12] Pay attention to the words 'is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors'. I templated[13] her for it, As you full well know its not the first time I've done that in recent days, and awarded the editor was the target of the Orlady's violation of WP:CIVIL with a barnstar[14]. Now she is accusing me[15] of using barnstars as part of a vendetta. Can't help to point out how that last link also fails WP:AGF....William 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I promise to look into this, but I cannot right away. I'm at work, have a meeting coming up, plus I promised someone to write an article. I will get to it, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC) No problem, SP. Get to it only when you have time....William 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I think there's less here than meets the eye. Let me start by noting that I am not a DYK regular, I have a few, but I'm not an expert. My understanding is that DYKs are proposed and reviewed in one area, and after review and acceptance, move into one of the prep areas. If the original vetting was adequate, there should be no need for further editing at the prep step. However, there have been complaints that the whole DYK process is has been too casual, so I am not unhappy at all to see some edits occurring at this stage. In some cases, it looks like a further stage of peer review that deserves kudos. However, while it might be appropriate at this stage to correct some that was missed (c.f. Dylan Penn edits), I don't think this is the right time or place to be fundamentally rewriting the hook. I accept that airgonate is a cool word, and it might be a useful service to readers to introduce the term, but the proper place to do that is in the article, before the DYK is finalized. If the word can be incorporated into the article without too much straining, then it might be part of a decent hook. However, changing the hook at that stage was , in my opinion, a poor idea. We wouldn't be here if the word had been simply added and removed. It was added more than once, and veered into edit war territory, on a final prep page. That is, in deed juvenile behavior, and I think Orlady's comment was restrained, given the situation. Note that she took care not to even accuse EEng of being immature, but suggested that the edit was something one might expect from a less mature individual. If you read carefully, you will see that Orlady is not calling EEng immature, just the opposite, she was implying that it was out of character. I'm just curious—how did you get involved? I occasionally jump into a conversation if I think someone is getting unfairly badgered, but I didn't get the sense that EEng need help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC) SP, I don't do any DYK work. So I have nothing to say on that dispute. What brought me in was my usual patrolling on what certain administrators do around here and as you once said on my talk page, you don't want me to stop doing. As to the mature comments, EEG doesn't seem to take them in a light vein. Check this[16]- 'since she's ludicrously determined to draw attention to her own silliness and fuss over the utterly trivial' and EEng's edit summaries for that thread. You've made no comment so far on Orlady's barnstar reaction....William 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for explaining how you came to see it. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I was genuinely wondering whether you found it as a DYK regular, or something else. I stand by my comments that I support you paying attention to admins. Thanks for the links to EEnG reactions, I'll look closer. Re barnstar, I mulled over how to respond, but got called away (as you might see I'm trying to write an article Mike Neighbors). I'll follow up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) A little prehistory may be in order here. The interaction with EEng is related to his recent involvement with DYK, where he cast aspersions on the competence and good judgment of pretty much everyone who was ever previously involved with the project. He represented himself as particularly well qualified not only to point out our faults but also to second-guess our actions. He has lightened up quite a bit and other DYKers have gotten more accustomed to his personal style, which often seems to include making sarcastic comments on talk pages and in edit summaries. A couple of examples of my interactions with him at DYK are in Template:Did you know nominations/Heber Hart, the exchange at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 108#Hook removed from main page, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 108#Bergman. Aside: The recent climate at DYK, particularly as affected by EEng and The Rambling Man, is making DYK an unsatisfying area to work in. And after EEng has criticized pretty much everyone else for what he perceives to be poor quality control, that stunt of inserting an obscure word in a hook is very hard to accept. As for WilliamJE, some time ago he declared that he intended to watch me and lead the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!. When he shows up out of the blue to criticize me (for something I did, as in this case, or for someone else's edit that he mistakenly attributed to me, as happened a couple of months back), I have to assume he's following through on that declaration. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I composed this about 5 hrs ago but was called away before posting. I stand by everything I say in Orlady's diffs -- in fact, one of them is in my own post below -- and leave it to my esteemed fellow editors to draw their own conclusions from them.] Hope you don't mind my butting in -- I went poking around after receiving one of WJE's barnstars. Somehow you've morphed me from EEng to EEG, but, hey, what's in a name? I'm not upset or worried by anything Orlady does with regard to me. A few months ago a spontaneous movement broke out to bring some serious quality control to DYK -- there were just too many silly, illiterate, and just plain wrong DYK items making it to the main page. I happened to be walking by at the moment, got drawn in, and I've been hanging around ever since. Unfortunately, a few editors' feathers are ruffled over this -- some of them had enjoyed racking up large numbers of submissions with little scrutiny. This [17] pretty much tells the story, and while you may think the reference to Dunning-Kruger harsh, a review of our prior interactions (at that nom and elswhere) will explain my frustration. Since then she seems to have an intellectual chip on her shoulder -- keeps trying to one-up me somehow, and while self-indicting efforts like that are tiresome they don't trouble me, though I do appreciate WJE's solicitousness. As to airgonation, it is indeed a fun word, and while opinions vary on what makes a good hook, at least some of us think that an unusual and intriguing word can help. It's very common practice to tinker with hooks at they go to prep and while in prep -- the DYK rules explicitly recognize this and nominators are expected to keep their eyes open. In this case, I knew I was going out on a limb but there are many eyes on the preps and I fully expected a discussion to ensue which either would or wouldn't end with the change staying. What I didn't expect was Orlady to portray my suggestion as a some kind of presumptuous intrusion. Like the diff I supplied earlier in this post, her statement at Talk:DYK, "It seems that User:EEng found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to add it to the hook in prep", tells the story pretty well -- she doesn't seem to realize that not everyone has to look in a dictionary for unusual and enlivening words, for example, and I think most people at DYK would be startled at the notion that a "cute" (whatever that means) hook is a bad thing. That airgonation cute-ifies the hook was not a justification for removing it, so I thought I'd put it back to attract further attention. I won't go into further details but even the person who subsequently removed it again, later later told me he'd thought better of that. But I didn't want to kick poor Orlady when she was already down. Anyway, thanks for the concern. EEng (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I guess I will respond to one of Orlady's misrepresentations in her post above. I did not portray myself "as particularly well qualified not only to point out our faults but also to second-guess our actions" -- what I said is this: it's obvious that there are just a handful of people who are willing and able to act as a final barrier keeping nonsense off the main page, however well-intentioned QPQ reviewers may be Putting aside poor Orlady's conflation of pointing out faults in hooks with pointing out faults in editors, that's quite a different statement, especially when you consider the willing part. At the time I wrote that, up to five hooks per day were being pulled off the preps, Qs, or even the main page for sourcing or accuracy problems. The proof that those pulls were justified, at least in the case of those I did, is that with one or two exceptions none of the pulled hooks made it to the main page without either substantive revision to the hook itself or a new source supplied to the linked article. And those pulls were carried out by a very small number of people, of whom I was one. Whether other people could do this, I don't know, but they certainly weren't doing it. So Orlady can fuss all she wants, but the proof is in the pulling. Almost nothing is pulled now, which suggests that attitudes toward accuracy and sourcing have indeed improved. If that makes DYK a less satisfying place for her to work, so be it. Since you mentioned me I thought I'd let you know my take on things, but otherwise as far as I'm concerned Orlady's actions speak for themselves and there's nothing more to discuss. You two go ahead and if you need me for something ping me. EEng (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) SP, I just got my latest ebook back from my editor with lots of revisions she suggested I do. Tomorrow I'll read what you and EEng wrote and make a reply....William 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I fixed the spelling (sorry), and read your response. It deserves more than a quick reaction, and as I have to go out of town, with limited internet access for at least a day, maybe two, my lack of response now should not be equated to lack of interest, but the opposite. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) FTR, here's a recent example of the interaction style of one of the other users: diff --Orlady (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Why you refer to me cryptically as "one of the other users" I have no idea, but FTR I stand by what I said there. You habitually "respond" to things I haven't said, and I honestly don't know whether you do this on purpose, don't bother to understand, or genuinely can't understand. EEng (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) @Orlady, WilliamJE, and EEng:It is not uncommon that learning more about the back story completely changes one's view of an interaction. However, in this case, while the back story helped explain some of the actions, it did not change my initial reactions. I've known about complaints (re lack of adequate vetting) at DYK for years. It sounds like EEng was responding to those concerns. Many of the suggestions and changes seem warranted, so EEng deserves plaudits for stepping in and helping. I do have some concerns, as already expressed, about the types of changes proposed in final prep as opposed to earlier stages in the process. Final prep is the last chance to catch outright errors, and catching them at the last minute is better than not catching them. Similar thoughts re word tweaks, which improve clarity, but do not materially change the hook. However, while the use of an obscure word may well prove to be a good hook, the word should already be in the article, and the discussion should be deleted with at an earlier point in the process, not in final prep. Even such a late proposal would merely be an annoyance, but the real problem was the attempt to re-insert it after it was properly removed. If I were working there at the time, and saw the edit summary hee hee, sounds like a war crime, I'd also wonder about the maturity level (even if a temporary lapse) of the editor. Orlady's response, while strong, was measured, and did not constitute a personal attack. Then William steps in, seeing what appears to be a personal attack, and tries to help. William surely you know about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I use templates regularly, and find them very useful, but using a template in a situation like this is often viewed as insulting. For a newish editor, who might not yet know the community mores, it might be appropriate. For someone like Orlady, not because she is an admin, but because she is experienced, certainly knows the general concepts embodied in the template. It is conceivable that even an experienced person might say something that is perceived as a pa even if not intended. I'm sure I'm guilty of that, but the proper response is an explanation of the specific situation, not a standard template. I can't read her state of mind, but if she was miffed over the edit war, this didn't help. Then you gave EEng a barnstar. However, it was not the usual use of a barnstar, to thank someone for doing especially good work, it was really a slap at Orlady. You may have intended it for EEng, but that isn't how it was perceived. I think Orlady was quite measured to simply point out that the developers of Wikilove would be chagrined to find their creation used to take a shot at someone (even if that is not what you intended). William I hope you saw that I supported you in the last incident you brought to me—however, while I think your heart is in the right place trying to defend what you thought was an unfair reaction to EEng and to you, I'm not with you this time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I think you have it just about right. I would only point out that in introducing the word airgonated my edit summary was [18] i hope i will be pardoned for introducing the term airgonate -- great word -- see http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/270413 where the link is to the definition of the word. A few minutes later I changed "airgonated during battle" to "engaged in airgonation during battle", and that's when I used to edit summary hee hee, sounds like a war crime -- nothing to do with re-adding the word after anyone removed it. Much later Orlady removed airgonated, saying removed User:EEng's introduction of a word that isn't in most dictionaries, isn't used in the target article, and wasn't discussed in the DYK nom and it was then that I re-added it, saying hooks frequently use words not in all dictionaries, not in the target article and/or not discussed in the nom -- if you have a substantive reason for not using a fun word that might (or might not) be judged to attract clicks, please offer that -- explaining further at Talk DYK. I hope it's clear that I went to effort to draw attention to the new word, hoping that others would comment. What I wasn't hoping was that Orlady would remove it outright just because she sees expanding one's vocabulary as a burden rather than a delight. (By the way, it's untrue that words in the hook must be in the article -- certainly if the article said someone went up in a balloon, no one would object to the hook reciting that he ascended. airgonated is admittedly more exotic, which is why I thoughtfully supplied my fellow editors with a link to its definition, as an aid to their consideration.) EEng (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I accept that a word used in a hook doesn't have to be in the article, and the example you gave is a good one. However, no one is going to read a hook with the word "ascended" and say to themselves, I wonder what that word means, I think I'll read the article. It is plausible someone might see the word "airgonate", wonder what it means, and click on the link to find out, only to be unrewarded. The word isn't in the article, so one has to do some heroic inference to figure it out. That may not be a DYK rule, but I suggest it should be. However, while I am fascinated by the minutiae of that exchange, I haven't argued that "airgonate" in a hook constitutes a bad hook, the issue is the edit warring at the last minute. Suppose you were in charge of best practices for DYK. Can you possibility imagine the following rule: One element of a good hook is a relatively rare word that may encourage a reader to want to click on the hook to find out more about the word usage. In fact, this is such a good idea that one should consider adding such a hook at the last minute, over the objections of others, and to do so even when the meaning of the word isn't explained in he article, thereby defeating he point, as long as you think it is a cool enough word to justify last minute edit warring. Should anyone object, feel free to ignore the usual community standards for collegial writing and take pot shots at anyone who disagrees. Over the top? Perhaps a bit but not much. If a little over the top it is a reaction to your recent response to Orlady, which are skirting the edges of personal attacks. Please dial it back. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Your comments are well-taken. Bear in mind -- not to start of round of "Daddy, she started it!" -- that in my first real interaction with Orlady (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heber_Hart) it wasn't long before I was on the receiving end of stuff like I will bluntly state that EEng's recent actions (of which this is just one) indicate a campaign of harassment against DYK -- possibly aimed at killing DYK by driving away self-respecting competent DYK volunteers. Talk about AGF! Anyway, thanks for the food for thought. EEng (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm aware of the dangers of who started it first. I once decided I couldn't properly understand issues in the Middle East untill I figure out who started it. This was years ago, so I can recall the exact issue that brought me to my knees, but I got as far back as some incident around the year 800, and saw people saying they would never forgive that affront, and decided it was hopeless (yes, I am aware I wasn't close to the beginning). I have no intention of figuring out which of you two started it first,even though I am certain it is more recent than the Middle East issues, but I hope both of you will realize that you have a common goal, making this a better encyclopedia, and try to do better. I know this is easier said than done, but it is worth trying. On that note, I think I will close this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, in the Middle East as in the Balkans, who you think the villain is depends on when you started watching the movie. EEng (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Reply to SP I've been (and still are) busy with an ebook I'll soon be publishing. (At the moment I have five for sale at Amazon) So I haven't had the chance to reply till now. A few things EEng didn't just get a barnstar from me over this but another editor also. It happens to be right above mine. SP, you point out 'Don't template the regulars. As you and I both know that isn't WP policy. Secondly, there is also Template the regulars. In fact my User page advocates the later. Noone should be above templating. If you're advocating Don't, then why didn't you advocate this when Nyttend templated me last January as part of the Orlady's spiteful wrong block of me brouhaha. In that case, it was clear to you I was criticizing, not attacking, an admin for his actions. Thirdly, EEng isn't the first editor I've wikiloved or gone to bat for who I thought was being wrongly treated. I barnstared The Banner a few weeks ago because of his courage to fight a seeming tidal wave of I believe wrong editors. I wikiloved another editor who got sniped at over at ANI about 6 months ago. There might be a couple of similar actions by me, I'd have to look through my edit history. Last November if I hadn't stood up to an administrator and virtually forced him to take a block of his to ANI for review, that editor would have remained blocked even though 2 administrators (TParis was one, the other I forget) thought the blocking admin was wrong but wouldn't perform an unblock. I came to you a ways back to get another editor unblocked when I thought it was wrong and you did do the unblock. I criticized an admin over the length of a block which was wrongly based on how many times the editor had been blocked in the past. The admin wrote 8 when the total was like 4, and one of those was a block done in error and reversed like two minutes later. I didn't push the matter only because the block was almost over. That administrator is on my watchlist however. With the exception of the editor you unblocked, I showed support of these editors on their talk pages, but I did offer that other editor help in the future with his editing issues. There might be one or two more cases. I can get you differentials if you want. I've barnstared other times. Get some smelling salts out for Orlady, Barnstared 2 or 3 admins, gave kittens to TRM not too long after he and I were squabbling and had it out on this talk page, and maybe a couple of other instances one of which may have been you. Orlady leveled a personal attack at an editor and I barnstared the target at the same time making it known what it was for....William 22:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) WJE - In many ways I feel as you do about Orlady, and maybe some correction would be in order -- I really don't know. The problem with your continuing to pursue this here and now is that you're using her silliness toward me as your vehicle for discussing her, but I'm not suffering as a result -- as you can see I'm more than capable of dealing with Orlady myself. So you're kind of making points about "the principle of the matter", as it were, when there's not really anything to be remedied -- if she'd blocked me or something it might be different, but at this point I think you should drop it. EEng (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Strand of Oaks press photo 2014.jpg

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

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

A Request Edit

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

I'll try, but I'm swamped. Promised to write an article I'm working on, have some Arbcom work to do, the CSD backlog is stubbornly high, the OTRS backlog is scary and am depressed over the growth of the Request Edit backlog. Maybe this evening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked, but it looks to me like it requires some discussion. Will try to put some thoughts together over the weekend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I added some comments to the talk page. Some may be strong, but that's how I feel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I looked through your notes, checked the sources and I think addressed your feedback (if not let me know). CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with me and all your help on that! Did you want to keep working on the other sections or are you all teetered out for now? I know these reviews can be a lot of work and for a large/complex article like this it is too much for any one editor to do. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I need a bit of a break. If no one else steps up, ping me at the end of the week and I'll do some more. I site I've linked to probably a thousand times reorganized their site, so I'm manually fixing the links. On a related topic, I'm discouraged about the growth in Request edits again. I thought I found the perfect solution for one, which was medical related and asked here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Edit_request_needs_some_knowledgeable_help but it isn't going well. I've handled a couple, but some are complicated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an open and shut case to me; it could be closed out at this point as declined. It is almost never acceptable to link to someone's personal website in a citation, especially if they are not the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

Totally pointless, but...

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

@Protonk: The funny thing is...I got an edit conflict when I went to correct a spelling error. I was contemplating writing a highly indignant post somewhere about getting an edit conflict with oneself. I didn't consider for one second that it might be an actual edit conflict. Glad I didn't write it. Yeah, let's ask Media Wiki to change their reporting - this rounding off to whole seconds is very unprofessional.:)

As an aside, after reading that prose, I became concerned when I saw the editor had over a hundred edits, and decided, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that I need to check any edits to article space. Luckily none.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Their talk page is/was pretty bizarre. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I know we have a policy against pre-emptive blocks, and I support it, but if I were looking for an argument to change that policy, this would be it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit landed 9 seconds before mine. Although nobody knows the real timing difference. :) Protonk (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The actual edit was nine seconds different. That's partly because I don't know how to do the edit conflict thing, so when I get one, I back out and try again. Plus, if I did know how to do the edit conflict thing, I don't know whether then completed edit would have the original time or the final time. That's without getting into the challenges of time ordering events. I didn't fully read the attachments, but I am aware that time ordering is not easy when considering events at two locations. Doesn't that problem go away if the event occurs at the same locations? Which condition seems like it applies to two editors trying to edit the same thread. (Unless we happen to be accessing two different servers? I'm not sure how that works.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

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

Verification, creds, links

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

some Books and anthologies I have written or edited:

Collapsed list

[rigger death and hoist another [room and the world [panic [speech-acts [sense of regard Reviews or comments on my work: [[19] [[20] [[21] [[22] [[23] Interviews of me or by me: [[24] [[25] [[26] [[27] [[28] [[29] Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers: [[30] [[31] [[32] [[33] [[34] Examples of poems online: [[35] [[36] [[37] [[38] [[39] [[40] [[41] [[42] [[43] [[44] [[45] [[46] [[47] [[48] [[49] [[50] [[51] [[52] [[53] I teach in these two writing venues, one an annual conference, the other an MFA program: [[54] [[55] Other things I have written that appear on Web: [[56] [[57] [[58] [[59]

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

It gets resolved by an editor with enough interest in literature in general or poetry specifically, reviewing the case for notability, and if supported, making a case at the AfD. That editor will not be me, mainly because I have made commitments to other editors that I'm not delivering on.

I see that we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry, I was going to suggest you try there, but I see you already have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

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

Can you be my mentor on Wikipedia

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

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

Thanks

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

 DoneYou can see I don't spend much time at AE.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And hopefully this will be my last trip there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AE Clerk's note

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

I didn't know about the max, I'm fine with that, my goal was to emphasize that while I can excuse a close call, I will be looking for a long block if repeated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, either. Might be a good idea to post your reply above over on AE so Callanecc will see it. Thanks again for your understanding of the situation. I really appreciated that. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, things are a bit hectic - I saw your earlier note when I was cleaning up a mess and thought I was posting there. Just noticed my error and made an edit there just about the time you posted here. Let me know if you think more is needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I posted a note on Callanecc's talk page with a diff of your change so he knows and can close. Thanks for that. Much appreciated. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Redmi

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

@Northamerica1000:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the userfication. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You missed one

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

PS Will do.

I think someone must have beat me to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

[61] Today hasn't been my best, guess I lost it for a while. Feel free to remove other comments I made, with the assurance it won't be repeated and it isn't normal. Time for the pub methinks. Regards, WCM_email 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Wish I could join you at the pub.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Misty Copeland image

Re [62]

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

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

I haven't ruled out the possibility that it is legitimate, but when seeing a watermark, seeing a clear copyright statement on another site hosting it, and no OTRS ticket, the starting assumption is that it is not validly licensed. It's a nice image, so I've love to hear that the intention is to provide it, but we'll need a non-watermarked version ad a permission email. (I've had good expereinces writing and asking for images. Far from 100%, but a decent hit ratio.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I couldn't find it on the net. A lot of sites are blocked here in China, so copyvio searches are often difficult. But I have tagged and bagged around 750 commons copyvio files so far.

I've just written to Prescott and Copeland for images. Fingers crossed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Same here --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to you

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

Beebuk I was just thanking you for an edit. I'm happy to see you still contributing. I have fond memories of helping you in your early editing days. We need more like you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I'm still plugging away--but I regret to say that I'm no closer to "de-listifying" the Pierrot page than I was when we last corresponded. Here in Bangkok I just don't have the resources; even in the U.S. good libraries are far from our little burg on the Ohio. And it's such a difficult thing to do! But I feel that it's something I'll have to apply myself to, eventually. Beebuk 10:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Any problems with a REFUND?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm prepping to teach another (all-day) class today, will respond in more detail this evening. I mostly agree, with some concerns. will elaborate tonight. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:Some further thoughts—while I am sympathetic to your suggested approach, it appears to conflict with Wikipedia:Banning policy That does not mean case closed, but it does mean that you and I cannot just agree on what to do and do it, we need to address the policy. This is clearly not the right place to modify policy. Before jumping to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) I'm think that a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) may be warranted (I think one should go directly to VPP if you have a clear, thought out proposed change, than can be enacted or rejected, with possibly minor word smithing. I don;t think we are there yet.)

It would be useful to start something, then get some community input with an RfC. For example,you and I have talked about one aspect of banning policy, but have you seen the kerfuffle on Jimbo's page over whether editors other than Jimbo can remove banned editors posts summarily, even thought Jimbo sometimes engages? That would be worth discussing. ON a related issue, did you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Russavia_disruption.2C_requesting_multiple_article_protection. Long, intense discussion about the same issue. This isn't a coatrack, all three have the same central topic - how should the community respond when a banned editor edits?

If I write up a summary, will you follow to VPI, or do you have a better idea?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fairly in depth for a small issue. As I said, this chap is blocked, not banned - perhaps de facto banned at best. There has not been a community discussion on his edits - or has there been and I've missed it? You are right, there's a massive issue at the heart of this - how do we ban a user on an anonymous encyclopedia, but there's no way I'm waiting around for that to get fixed! Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry missed that. Will revisit my thoughts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned:As I said, I didn't realize the editor was blocked, rather than banned. Per block log, the issue was edit warring, which of course is serious, but in this context, good news. If the block had been for violation of copyright rules, then we would want to take extra care when looking at a deleted page to make sure there are no copyright issues. That doesn't appear to be the case, so I am fine with your approach. Restoring to a user space does preserve the editing history, and avoids my copyright question, although I suspect there are some editors who would elevate DENY to the point they would object, so we have to be prepared to have that conversation. Re-use of the same images? I see almost no issues. Maybe if the images were arranged on the page in a way that could be construed as artful, but that's rare, and doesn't apply to any of these situations. I feel the same about references. While one can argue there is effort in identifying references, I don't recall any copyright cases where something like this is even alleged.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was initially concerned about copyright (that's one of my 2 reasons not to REFUND), but there's so little there that it's not worth worrying about. I'm happy to argue with anyone over DENY - I see so many blocked editors who are not worth our time, those who are actually creating content aren't as much of a concern. If anyone else gets grumpy, send them my way! In any case, I'll get on and undelete those pages and will ensure they get to a decent state before they head into article space. Thanks for taking bit of time and chatting about the issues! Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about an article restored to userspace

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

@Resolute: Sorry, I missed that it was deleted as a hoax. I even vaguely reading some of it, because I was suprised to read that the NCAA does not allow overlapping sports. I know my wife played overlapping sports, but that was pre-NCAA. I fear I may have gotten lost down memory lane and missed the elephant in the room. There should be no need to go full MfD. Option 1. I move it back into main space, and tell editor I made a mistake, then one of us deletes as hoax. Option 2, if you have a better idea, but let's not go MfD.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

With my hockey background, that aspect of the hoax was pretty obvious - he claimed to have played at age 26 in a junior league with an age cap of 20. Among other things - including the copyvio images that were deleted from Commons. It was amusing, at least! As for deletion, I'd say then to simply delete the user copy. No sense getting bureaucratic unnecessarily, I think. Simple errors should only require simple solutions. Cheers! Resolute 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Resolute 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Life

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

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

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