User talk:Sphilbrick

Anonymous Editor Vandalism as of 07/23/2012

Let's close this discussion and carry on at Talk:Harmony, Florida
padding
Thank you again for your help with the previous "Anonymous Editor Vandalism" issue Sphilbrick. I am sorry to trouble you once more with the same nonsense. If you are tired of this, I fully understand. Please recommend another admin that I should approach if you would prefer not to deal with this anymore. It looks like the latest "anonymous" has a new "name". It is "Logiharmonyone". Apparently he or she wants to continue the edit war on the Harmony, Florida page. I attempted to get an explanation for Logiharmonyone's changes, to no avail. Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to Logiharmonyone's edits: In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an open newsgroup.[4] 4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12. This time "Logiharmonyone" has no stated rationale in the edit log for the changes. What was removed is historically accurate. Whereas what was added is not only inaccurate, but it also looks like it was written by a middle-school kid with a personal ax to grind. Once again it would appear that an anonymous person like "Logiharmonyone" wants to revise the history of Harmony. It seems that the primary purpose of the edit is to undermine the credibility of the Harmony newsgroup. The newsgroup not only serves the civic purpose of connecting citizens to public officials in and around Harmony, but it also serves to document ongoing issues with the development and the developer. This is not the first time. This is actually the 4th time that the paragraph referenced above has been tampered with. The initial occurrence was in 2010 when you helped with the Harmony, Florida page for the first time Sphilbrick. Here is what another Wikipedia moderator (Phantomsteve) wrote about the 2010 changes: RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material: No evidence that the cited website is all the work of one person - personal attack Prior to the current changes, it can be proven (with IP addresses) that the President of Harmony Development Company (or someone using his computer) actually expunged all references critical of the developer from the Harmony, Florida page on December 7th of last year. You can see it in the Harmony, Florida page history. When discovered, this same person scrambled to undo the changes without realizing that everything was being logged by Wikipedia. Can you please take another look into this Sphilbrick? GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I've got a meeting shortly, I'll try to look into it after the meeting--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I urge you to avoid using the word "vandalism" in situations such as this. That word has a specific meaning, and does not generally apply to all edits that might deserve removal. The most recent edit was problematic, and I undid it, but I specifically did not use the Rollback tool, which is intended for pure vandalism. Wikipedia does not prohibit the inclusion of negative information, indeed, an article with only positive information when information with a negative connation exists can be problematic. However, addition of claims about "disgruntled" residents has to meet a few hurdles, one of which is support by a reliable source. That wasn't present, so I reverted to the prior version. However, removal of material that does not conform to policy is not automatically deemed a vadlism edit. In many cases, they made by well-meaning individuals. This isn't my area of strength, expertise or interest. I have the page on my watch list, but I have 8000 pages on my watchlist, so it is easy for a single edit to escape my attention. I will leave it on my watch list, please feel free to post to me as you did if I miss something, and if it becomes a time-consuming issue, I'll poke around for another admin with more experience in the area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. I will endeavor to use a more neutral tone when bringing such activity to the attention of admins in the future. I have little doubt that it will happen again. And NP, about the page watch. I have no problem keeping an eye on it and letting you know. Thank you Sphilbrick. BTW, are you an actuary? -- GeorgeSchiro (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, I am an actuary.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I see that my edits were removed from the Harmony Florida page. I'm a bit unsure why my edits were removed, yet the edits by GeorgeSchiro are deemed permissible. The below excerpt from the page is nothing more than the opinion of GeorgeSchiro who is in no way a neutral party given the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has been barred from all property owned by the developer of the community and thus has an axe to grind. The citation for this section, "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup", is a Google group created and moderated by GeorgeSchiro and in no way can be viewed as a reliable or independent source. In fact, if you were to read the posts in the Google group (though I would not suggest you waste your time), 99% of the contributors disagree with GeorgeSchiro's opinions. In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an open newsgroup.[4] 4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12. The same applies to the following entry on the page: In 2012 long-standing Harmony residents were still awaiting these promised amenities (for almost a decade) [11]: Businesses in Town Square / Thriving Commercial / Vibrant Town Center Clubhouse Facilities for Recreation Equestrian Club (for all resident horse owners) Farmers Market Lake Club Open Access (to all 11,000 acres) Organized Field Sports Town Entry Spring House Bottom line is, if my edits were not considered valid, the two above made by GeorgeSchiro should not be considered valid either. Logiharmonyone (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC) You raise some important concerns. I cannot address at the moment, not because it is unimportant, but because I need to review much of the history to make sure that the subject is being treated neutrally.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC) SPhilbrick, please bear in mind that while "Logiharmonyone" prefers to remain anonymous, it is my understanding that he is a vocal supporter of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Based on a recent email I received, I believe that he is a current or former paid vendor of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Yes, I am a customer of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. But who better to offer an alternative perspective on what the developer has been doing in Harmony all these years (ie. "the other side of the story")? It is obvious that the vast majority of edits to the Harmony page over the years have been by anonymous developer agents. In fact, I am convinced that the Wikipedia Harmony page was originally created by Starwood people. Logiharmonyone wrote: the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has been barred from all property owned by the developer What irrational actions? Clearly "Logiharmonyone" is referring to the "Trespass Warning" letter issued to me without due process and as a direct response to my exposing the false edits to the Wikipedia page about Harmony (what I believe to be vandalism). Those edits were done from the computer of Shad Tome, President of Harmony Development Company. This is a provable fact. It is also a fact that what was removed from the Harmony page on Wikipedia by Mr. Tome (and later inaccurately altered by "Logiharmonyone") is also provably true. What "Logiharmonyone" didn't tell you SPhilbrick is that while I have been reporting the facts about the failings of Starwood / Harmony Development Company since 2006, I was barred from developer property 2 days after reporting the truth about the Harmony Development president's removal from Wikipedia of provable facts that have been in place since 2008. Thus "being barred" was the direct result of the "irrational act" of blowing the whistle on a multi-billion dollar real-estate company. Many witnesses have come forward with testimonials that confirm that the so-called "irrational actions" mentioned by "Logiharmonyone" are totally fabricated. Starwood / Harmony Development has not a single witness to support its allegations. This is a "David and Goliath" scenario SPhilbrick. Please read Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED and The Empire Strikes Back articles in the HarmonyFL Google newsgroup. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have and I will produce any documentation that you may require. I will also provide my phone number and my email address as needed. There are also several other Harmony residents who will confirm what I have written. Please note also that while many people have posted in the HarmonyFL newsgroup (all using their real names since that is a requirement), "Logiharmonyone" has never written a single word to refute any allegation against the developer. In fact, while the newsgroup currently has 80 members, "Logiharmonyone" is not among them. And the 99% that "Logiharmonyone" refers to are 3 people (all with a special relationship with the developer or with realtor connections). There are at least that many who have posted in support of what I have been writing. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I will try to look into this over the weekend.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I just wanted to follow-up on this inquiry. I respect your time and this is certainly not as important to me as it appears to be to GeorgeSchiro, but allowing GeorgeSchiro's edits to remain on this page are contrary to Wikipedia policies for the reasons I mentioned previously: 1) GeorgeSchiro is not a neutral party capable of presenting unbiased factual information due to his public disdain for and legal issues with the company developing Harmony, which I'm told resulted in him being legally barred from Harmony Development property due to his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry that he deemed "vandalism"; 2) The citations GeorgeSchiro presents as support for his contributions to the page come from a Google forum created and moderator by him, wherein he makes personal posts he terms as "articles" and presents them as factual history. The Harmony, Florida entry would be far more credible without GeorgeSchiro's editorial comments appearing there.Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) I also appreciate your attention to this SPhilbrick (please let me know if Stephen is OK or if you would prefer Mr. Philbrick or just SPhilbrick). This must certainly be one of your least pleasant activities on Wikipedia. I am very sorry about that. "Logiharmonyone" claims that this is "not as important" to him, yet here he is. Go figure! "Logiharmonyone" refers to my edits as "contrary to Wikipedia policies", yet he fails to include his own edits and the edits of other developer agents in his assessment. Please bear in mind that the Harmony page was originally setup by developer agents (I can't prove it since they're all anonymous like "Logiharmonyone", but it is obvious since the page was clearly setup years ago as marketing spam and subsequently maintained to parrot the developer's own website, as you yourself noted some time ago SPhilbrick). So from the perspective of "Logiharmonyone", it's OK for the Harmony developer to provide 82% of the content, no questions asked. Yet a Harmony resident has no right to offer a contrasting point-of-view? If I am not a neutral party, then neither is the developer or any of its agents. And when "Logiharmonyone" refers to "legal issues" there are none. The only issue is that the developer got very upset with me after I exposed their deception and they basically decided "You can't play with our ball or anywhere on our court anymore." There was no hearing. No judge. No jury. There was only the summary judgement of the offended party. All of this is detailed in the The Empire Strikes Back article. And yes, The Empire Strikes Back is indeed an article (a series actually), even if "Logiharmonyone" likes to demean it as something else. Although that article was only published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup, several other articles (ie. independent editorials) and letters to the editor that were initially published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup also appeared in print in the local Osceola Gazette newspaper. I was honored as a guest reporter to offer my opinions in the Osceola Gazette for these editorials: The 'best' for our children? Students in pursuit of honor What kind of people? "Logiharmonyone" writes "I'm told ... his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry." Told by whom? The developer? The same people who used an innocent young intern in their cowardly and devious attempt to expunge verifiable history from Wikipedia? The "harassment" that "Logiharmonyone" refers to was two phone calls and two emails in my capacity as a citizen reporter to find out what really happened. The intern denied any involvement in the Wikipedia edits. In fact, she claimed to have never edited Wikipedia. She was very friendly and cooperative until she was talked to by the developer (her former employer). Most of this is detailed in the Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED article. Finally, my citations do indeed refer to the Harmony, FL Commons website and its related HarmonyFL Newsgroup. But by the same token, most of the developer's edits refer to websites that they either own outright or to websites owned by their paid vendors. At this point the HarmonyFL Newsgroup is equivalent to an online independent newspaper in Harmony and I am its editor. You will see that there are many other contributors, not just me. And as I offered previously SPhilbrick, if there are any references or support materials that you need, please let me know and I will produce them. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC) A couple comments before I take a hard look at the article: I don't want to hear again that Logiharmonyone is posting anonymously. We allow that, even encourage that. That said, we don't allow user names that are clearly associated with an organization if the editor is editor an article about that organization. Logiharmonyone is potentially a problem, but not an issue I wish to address at this time. I suspect the notability of this article is borderline, and might not survive a close review. It is not unusual that articles such as this are largely edited by individuals with vested interests. That is not desired, but a fact of life. When the resulting article provide useful information, and doesn't go overboard, it isn't a life and death situation, but if the article becomes contentious, its very existence may be reviewed, if there is little hop of truly independent editors. My concerns about COI editing are not limited to Logiharmonyone, that concern also applies to GeorgeSchiro. A google news group is not a great source. For benign points, not worth fighting about, but if used to support contentious points, we may require better references, either as supplement or replacement, and failing that, may decide the best course is to remove the material. In my current mood, my desired action would be to blow it all up and start over, including the possibly that no article should exist. However, I don't want to act on that at the moment, so will cool off before taking next steps.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) SPhilbrick, I am completely on-board with your above stated points. I should say that I have never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company and my name incorporates "Harmony" only because I live there. I choose to remain anonymous because GeorgeSchiro has a documented history of harassing and bullying individuals who do not agree with him. Having said that, I only made edits to this article because GeorgeSchiro's edits reflect his opinions and his opinions alone, which cannot be verified by a legitimate source not created by him. My neighbors and I feel his edits unduly disparage our community. I am 100% fine with my edits being removed and think the article would be on solid footing with the removal of GeorgeSchiro's as well. GeorgeSchiro's edits aside, the rest of the article, in my opinion, references things that are concrete and easily verifiable. I apologize for the undue amount of time you've had to spend on this small article. My neighbors and I are just trying to do the right thing for our community. Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC) SPhilbrick, I don't really understand the encouragement of anonymity among editors of Wikipedia unless of course we are talking about citizens of a totalitarian government. It has been my experience that anonymity fosters falsehoods. Similar to how George Schiro is my real name, it is my understanding that SPhilbrick is your real name also, and in my eyes that gives you much more credibility than other Wikipedia editors, IMHO. That said, we can agree to disagree on that point SPhilbrick. Regarding "harassing and bullying", that is the developer's view of anyone who asks too many questions in public. Transparency and accountability is anathema to them. They are exactly like politicians who feel harassed and bullied by news reporters. Unlike many others in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup who do not fear having their identities known, "Logiharmonyone" simply wants to hide the fact that he is really working for the developer. When you have the opportunity, please read Finding Harmony History. It summarizes what this is really all about. "Logiharmonyone" says he has "never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company" yet we all know he has. His views are the developer's views. And the developer would like nothing better than to have the Wikipedia page about Harmony expunged since doing so will also expunge the links to any independent views about Harmony. That is their goal. That way prospective home buyers will not find any independent views about Harmony and how the developer really operates here. If you decide to remove the Harmony page, that will be a very sad day for press freedom here, IMHO. Please don't do it SPhilbrick. Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to anyone else's edits: In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an open newsgroup.[4] As you can see, it is very matter-of-fact and even-handed and every word is absolutely true (provably so). In fact, that paragraph accurately represents the history of Harmony in 2005. This Orlando Sentinel article was published at about the same time as the above paragraph. As you can see, contrary to what "Logiharmonyone" has been telling you, these are facts, not just my opinions. As you can also see, there is none of the inflammatory rhetoric in the above paragraph that is common to the "Logiharmonyone" edits (and his commentary here). The above paragraph stood without complaint for 2 years. Why? Because the Harmony page on Wikipedia did not rise to the first page of Google search results until 2010. Only after appearing on the first page of Google search results did this matter become an issue for developer agents like "Logiharmonyone". Another Wikipedia admin ruled in 2010 that changes to the above paragraph were unjustified, changes almost exactly like what "Logiharmonyone" posted. Please tell me SPhilbrick. What exactly do I need to do for the above paragraph to be maintained in its current state to the satisfaction of Wikipedia moderators? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Speaking narrowly, there's no sure way to keep a paragraph in a particular form, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, I assume you meant, "How than these facts remain in the article?" That requires support from a reliable source. I haven't yet read the Sentinel source, but that is a better source. @Logiharmonyone, my ruminations weren't about removing your edits, but removing the whole article. @George, I don't have the authority to remove the article. No individual Wikipedian has that authority. What I am wondering is whether it should be proposed for deletion, where a number of editors reach a consensus. I don't know what the outcome would be. My preference is to find a way to write an unbiased article, but that is looking very challenging.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

3rd Field War of Kosovo and anti-Turkish POV

Is there an edit war or something at the fields of Kosovo? I tried to use the Talk Page but did not help much. Too many reverts in one day... --E4024 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an edit war yet, but could become one. I glanced at the edits, can't do much more now, but I urge you to take the high road and post on the talk page why material should or should not be added or removed. I'll ask the others (in my morning) to do so as well. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to occupy this much of your time but could you also see here the scolding expression about a very respected Turkish academician and former Minister of Culture, Mr Talat Halman (if you have time you can see more in context in the paragraphs above the said insulting sentence)... Thanks and hope you are enjoying a nice Sunday. --E4024 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My Sunday has been challenging; I went out to pick up some railroad ties, and the truck overheated. Took me hours to get home. Back on topic, I posted a request to User:Irvi Hyka and will monitor that situation. I also promised another editor I would look into an issue at another page; I took a quick look at Rami, but that looks complicated. I won't be able to do that one justice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the truck. I just experienced a few days ago a similar problem the very first day I put a brand new car in my parking lot. I am not the type of man crazy for motor vehicles (in fact bought one after a lot of time without having any) but I was really depressed to see I could not play with the new toy. Thanks for your help in trouble-shooting (not the car, the other ones :-). Best.

Andrew Wyeth Paintings

I think we've got things wrapped up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings. If you want to close the discussion and reply to the OTRS ticket, I don't think anyone would object. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Sounds like a well-run and productive discussion. I've responded at OTRS, I'll wait to hear before I close the discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ticket 2012040410008295

Hi. After you merged two tickets I corrected the number here. I also noticed that you have not approved File:Scholastic Inc After Restoration 2007.jpg with the same number. Did you forget or is there another reason? --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the ones I handled in my first couple weeks as an agent. I know I misunderstood merging at first, it seems logical to me that you would merge the new email into the old, but the correct process is the reverse, which means I make a couple errors (doing what made sense, rather than following the process literally). I suspect that is why I have the ticket number wrong. As for failing to add the permission, simply an oversight, now corrected. I've caught a couple instances of adding the template and forgetting to notify the emailer, but this is the first one I've noticed with the reverse. I now make a point of making sure I see the ticket before sending the confirmation, so I think my own personal process has now improved. Thanks for catching it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The important is that it is now fixed. Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Darkwarriorblake's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback NFCR uploader notification

I responded at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review#Notification of the uploader - should it be required?. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification board proposal

When do you think you'll bring that forward, and where at? Village pump technical or proposals? I made a similar comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Noticeboard tool but it was never commented on. Ryan Vesey 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted at proposals. I fear I didn't sell it well enough, as it is getting almost no traffic. I like your proposal, which means on wouldn't even have to be at a notice board. I just thought it would be easier to implement if you were already trying to make a report at a notice board.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Your name is not mentioned, but you are a party to one of the incidents addressed in the new section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_new_wrinkle_on_personal_attacks? that I just started at WP:ANI. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your closing of that discussion -- I'd prefer to just let it go to the archives in its own time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, but not strongly enough to dispute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone re-hats, I'm not going to argue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: Sandra Navidi

Hi Sphilbrick. You are listed as the administrator who deleted the article that I wrote on Sandra Navidi. Am I permitted to create a new article on the same person, provided I remove that part of the content which violated G12? And if I do so, is there anything special I need to do (or clear with you first)? Or can I simply upload the new article? Can I do it immediately, or do I need to wait a specific number of days? Thank you. Whytestone (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

You can do it immediately, you don't need permission. Thanks for asking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I uploaded the new page, but later noticed that the capitalization is incorrect. It should be Sandra Navidi but it came out as Sandra navidi. I tried to change it by adding at the bottom of the page, but that did not work. Please advise how I can make this correction. Thank you Whytestone (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

The way a title change is made is to move the article to a new name. Because you are not yet able to see the move tab (you will with two more edits), I did it for you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Whytestone (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

Files Navarino Eleon.jpg and co

Hi SPhilbrick, When I set out to create the Navarino Icons, I asked a Greek friend to take a digital photograph of the product and send to me, and I enhanced it; I have no reason to doubt then that he did not take the photographs as directed. As it is now, can you help license the files accordingly as promotional images if that would pass for fair-use? —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine how they could possibly pass fair use. There's nothing stopping anyone from taking a picture of the products. In other words, they are replaceable, which is one of the criteria. (There might be an issue of the copyright status of the container design, but that's a separate issue.) However, while I am learning a lot about image licensing, I don't pretend to be an expert, so it is possible someone else will have different advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. If you can look at the article—Navarino Icons—itself and help out, I would even be more grateful. My talk with the editor—User_talk:Eeekster#Navarino_Icons—who tagged it have not yielded response yet. Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese towns G6 moves from August 2011

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for you work and sorry to bother you, but think this is worth asking. This notification comes rather belatedly, because even though you actioned a significant number of G6 "uncontroversial moves" for User:Kauffner from July-October 2011, unlike 3 other admins (Graeme Bartlett, Edgar181 and Malik Shabazz) the G6 "uncontroversial moves" you actioned weren't accompanied by edits such as an IP puppeting Miszabot to hide by archiving a contrary RM Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 or logged-in deletion of Talk page links to contrary RM notices before requesting G6s. So even though your User ID comes up frequently among the 600 "uncontroversial moves", they weren't ones where IP activity or Talk page deletions obscuring contrary RM results from a G6 admin were involved. Anyway, the reason for contacting you today is I just noticed a particularly questionable move:

(cur | prev) 10:03, 11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,957 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan: Drop Vietnamese diacritics as there is virtually no use in published English. See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau) (undo)) (undo)

I personally think that 4 days after a RM to move several Vietnamese towns at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 failed, the move of Phú Xuân, the historical capital of the Nguyễn Lords should never have been submitted for G6 as uncontroversial. Therefore I would like to request that Phú Xuân be restored because of historical significance and relatively common use of the full Vietnamese name in English histories of the period. Plus consistency with the modern place name Huê.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited United African Apostolic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apostolic Faith Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Permission confirmation

Hi Sphilbrick, hope everything is well with you, I wanted to let you know that I have sent a email for "File:Ruff Sqwad.jpg" using the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I was hoping if you can please help me to process and fast track it, so that my email doesn't get lost. I'am forever grateful for your help – MarkMysoe (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Guy Veloso

Dear,

I `ve created that page!!!  :-) ...The page on Facebook about the Photographer Guy Veloso is my creation! Please see my name in the end of the page! "Created by Deborah Cabral (jounarlist) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Guy-Veloso/314985578594507?ref=ts&sk=info

Please, reload (ouer) wik page?

And, if you want, the Photographer could send you a e-mail (if necessery). The page (texts and photos) was autorizated by the artist. You Can ask him by his webpage: http://www.fotografiadocumental.com.br/site/?page_id=487

Thanks.

--189.82.87.226 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See Donating copyrighted materials. Yes, an email is needed, the instructions are at the link, please ask if they aren't clear.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

123 and 112

Could be additions by the same user, on the same article, with 2 names? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have no skills in the SPI area. I see people concluding that two editors are clearly the same, and I often don't see it. The regulars that hang out at wp:spi are better at that sort of thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've filled out the survey and look forward to testing this out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read it all, but an interesting and exhausting discussion of the naming options.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS permission FYI

I noticed it on Federico Longo in particular, but it applies generally: Per WP:COPYVIO "until the donation process is complete the article should be replaced with the {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} tag". Since (as you presumably know) there are plenty of times when the permission isn't ever worked out satisfactorily for one reason or another. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, and I probably knew that. I think the permissions will be straightforward, (although promotional issues will remain), but I agree, best to leave the template until cleaned. I'm trying to dig out some of the CP, and I thought it would be better if this wasn't in the list, but I agree it should be.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in this case it was already on the list. Anything that gets tagged by CorenSearchBot/MadmanBot/VWBot gets listed at SCV and so transcluded into CP, and checking for an OTRS tag is pretty quick all things considered. Anyways, cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Nivedita Tiwari 2012.jpg

You added {{PermissionOTRS}} here, but there is no valid licence template listed. Can you take a look at it? As it is now, it looks as if it should be deleted per WP:CSD#F3. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I also took up this matter on the uploader's talk page when the file information page was edited a few days ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been better at making sure the license on the image matches the email, but I didn't in this case. The email has the usual standard language, which I glanced at but I see that it clearly specifies an unacceptable language. Will address now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, My apologies for the mistake in the license name. I read the guidelines but got confused with the noncommercial portion. I have corrected the license template and also the correct license template was emailed to the permissions email address. Sorry again guys and thanks. (Raasta123 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. I checked at OTRS, and do not see an updated email from you. I don't know whether there is a lag, I would have guessed it would be almost instantaneous.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply! The email with the permissions is actually coming from someone else and I thought she had sent the email update already. I will confirm with her to make sure it is sent (I'm assuming not since you don't have it) and then follow up with you. Sorry for all the issues. --(Raasta123 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Not a problem, just want to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised permission received and now acceptable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Raasta123 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Jobin RV's talk page.
Message added 04:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jobin^{What's up?} 04:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with assisting a user with COI on the Human Terrain System page

Hi Sphilbrick!

You kindly responded to my question at Teahouse about some section blanking on the Human Terrain System (HTS) page. After I wrote to the user, welcomed them, and explained why I had reverted their edits, they have written back explaining that they work for HTS, are planning - with others - to update the page, and would like to become 'owner' of the page. It seems to be all good faith, if just based on a misunderstanding of how wiki works (as you suggested, in fact). I feel that I am far too inexperienced as an editor to be able to offer the necessary guidance/explanations here, so I wondered if you might be able to step in?

With all best,

Lorelei (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi S. Phillbrick - sorry, back again! I see you responded immediately - thanks so much! However, the user had explained why they were making the edits (see their comments under SRich's warning about section blanking). They seem to think that they might be able to take over and become owner of the HTS page and so would need some explanation on this.

Thanks so much - and sorry for hassling you again (am watching and learning so won't have to ask if there's a next time!)

Lorelei (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded, I'm a little worried I came across heavy-handed, but I was typing fast. We'll see how it goes. As I said, many people request ownership of articles. It has NEVER been granted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much again :) It didn't seem heavy-handed to me: HTS is no newbie to controversy and, in truth, the article about it had been more of a battle-site than an article for quite some time (and under a neutrality tag) before SRich and I put a load of work into getting it NPOV a couple of months ago. So I think it was important it was handled effectively (and fairly decisively too) so it didn't escalate. Many thanks, Lorelei (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Same as the message above, I think editors should be able to restore these G6 moves, as they were problematic. Âu Lạc is another example. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. The message above doesn't relate to G6.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, am I mistaken, (cur | prev) 10:03, 11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,957 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan: Drop Vietnamese diacritics as there is virtually no use in published English. See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau) (undo)) (undo).. is this not a result of a user putting in a G6 "uncontroversial move" request? It bears the hallmarks of 600 similar "uncontroversial" requests. Excuse me if I've used the incorrect terminology. Never having requested this kind of move I'm not clear on the full details. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I was confused because you said "Same as the message above". I still don't know what that means. So you are asking about a move I made over a year ago. I don't recall the details, but I see the move discssion at Talk:Ngo_Bao_Chau. That discussion was closed with a consensus to move. I think you are requesting that the pages be moved back. That isn't likely to happen without a Move discussion, one that overrides the earlier decision. Has that taken place, or are you planning to do so?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, yes I'm asking about a move made over a year ago:

18 July 2011 close RM for Vietnamese mathematician Talk:Ngo Bao Chau = RM succeeded moved

07 Aug 2011 close RM for Vietnamese towns Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 = RM failed, not moved

11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick moved Vietnamese town Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau

Why did the 11 August uncontroversial move request for a Vietnamese town refer to the 18 July mathematician rather than the 07 August Vietnamese town when the request was to move another Vietnamese town rather than move another mathematician? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. - that isn't likely to happen without a Move discussion, one that overrides the earlier decision. Has that taken place, or are you planning to do so? - your move overrides the earlier decision about Vietnamese towns, but yes the decision about Vietnamese towns has been verified, there are 3RMs at Talk:Cà Mau (i) 6 July 2010 (ii) 7 August 2011 (iii) 24 August 2012. These are the only 3 RMs there have ever been for Vietnamese towns, all 3 have the towns at Vietnamese names. So there shouldn't be "uncontroversial moves" citing a Vietnamese mathematician moving Vietnamese towns counter the results of RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of diacritics has been contentious. I've read some of the issues, but haven't as far as I recall, contributed to the discussion. It is awkward that one move discussion closes with a consensus to move, and another closes with no consensus, but you are reading too much into it to assume that the rules might depend on whether the subject is a location or a person. Perhaps that is relevant (although I don't see why), but it is more likely that happenstance meant that the handful of editors who contributed to one discussion did so in a way that an admin felt there was a consensus to move, while the set of editors who showed up at the other one didn't reach such a consensus. I wasn't aware of both discussions until now. I made a move based upon a successful consensus. You have pointed out that a different discussion failed. This clearly means that the issue isn't simple, so no further moves, nor restores, should be done until another move discussion takes place. Ideally, someone will start an RFC, and bring in both of these discussions, and any other relevant ones, and maybe we can reach a better consensus.

(I added italics to your post, because your quote of me was quite confusing at first.)

You said my move overrode an earlier one. That's misleading. The editors contributing to the discussion did not bring up that discussion, so it wasn't considered. Which is unfortuante, as the result might have been different had people realized a different result had been reached in a similar circumstance.

I'm not quite sure what you are requesting. If you are requesting that some moves be undone, that isn't going to happen without a community discussion. If you want to point out that two discussions took place at similar times, with similar issues and reached different conclusions, consider it pointed out. However, that reinforces the need for a community wide discussion, it does not support the notion that the moves can simply be reversed. Or at least, that's how it appears to me. Perhaps a different admin would see it differently.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks again for your time.

Yes, definitely the issue of diacritics has been contentious (though I would say the contention re European names is over, it wasn't last year) which is why in my view 600 Vietnamese articles should not have ever been moved by db-move / G6 requests even if there had been RMs in favour, much less since there'd been RMs against.

You say The editors contributing to the discussion did not bring up that discussion, so it wasn't considered. I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence

"The editors contributing to the discussion" = The editors contributing to the discussion on Vietnamese town names at the Vietnamese town names RM which ended July 7?

If that's what "The editors contributing to the discussion" means (sorry I'm trying to work out which editors which discussion), well of course they didn't bring up Vietnamese town Phú Xuân, because they never knew about it, it was not taken to a second Vietnamese town RM after the Vietnamese town RM failed, the initiator of the failed RM ignored the result of the RM and brought it to uncontroversial moves instead. Or does "The editors contributing to the discussion" refer to something else? Sorry, not deliberately trying to be dense, the confusion probably arises from my own presentation above rather than your answer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, I saw a move request with a consensus to move. So I carried out one (or maybe more). In retrospect, there was a lot going on at the time, which was relevant to the request, but not known at the time. However, I'm seeing much of this now, a year later, for the first time. I'm still not sure I understand your request. If you think a move carried out a year ago should be reversed, because you now have evidence it wasn't quite as uncontroversial as it seemed at the time, that's not likely to happen. When we find that something is contentious, we slow down, and try to get it right, we don't simply reverse the decision and start over.

I have a lot of interests, and a lot of things on my plate. I handle some things that are complicated, and in other areas, I stick to the less contentious issues. If you want to talk about a contentious copyright issue, I'm all over it. But you've pointed out that the diacritics issue is quite complicated, so I'm going to leave it to those who know more about it. I helped with what I thought was a maintenance task when I thought there was a simple, clear conclusion. It is now clear that more issues need to be considered. If you came to me because the admin performing the move should be approached first, my answer is simple. If a new discussion results in a consensus to move back, there won't be any issue from me. I don't have a strong opinion about the issue, and simply was carrying out the results of an apparent consensus.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick, very helpful, then since you have no objection I think then the next step would be submit a selection of several of "your" (i.e. Kauffner via G6 process) moves to a new RM and see if the conclusions are the same as at Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên, and the 3 RMs 2010 2011 2012 at Talk:Cà Mau. It's unfortunate that with close to 700-800 geography articles having been unilaterally moved and preemptively locked against reversion by use of redirect-edits, to go the honest route via WP:RM to revert all 700-800 moves back to agreement with the original Vietnam city name RM results will take till 2016 to undo one User's undiscussed moves. But anyway that is the way the system works. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• This issue has already been to ANI. How many places does it get forum shopped to? Kauffner (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, this particular issue has not been to ANI. (i) The ANI report above was 2 days prior to discovery of logged out activity hiding contrary RM results before requesting "uncontroversial" dbmoves against RM results. (ii) Karl B's note at ANI makes no mention of the 600x G6 moves where admins were proxied, he is referring only to the 1000x undiscussed moves and redirect-edit-locks done under Kauffner's own name. It's not clear from the note at ANI that KarlB had, at the time, any clue about Kauffner's use of dbmove templates and proxied admins. I have to be honest neither did I, I originally looked at the edit histories a couple of months ago and thought "who is this guy Sphilbrick who keeps moving Vietnam articles?!" ...for a rank-and-file editor who has never requested a dbmove, it's impossible to tell an admin being proxied from a first-hand user. Maybe a template change to record the name of the requesting user along with the admin is something that could be considered in future? But anyway, that's not my problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've seen Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese), that looks like the right venue. FYI, I'm going to have limited, close to zero Wikipedia time between now and Thursday at the earliest.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

[1] Eau (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sounded like it reached a satisfactory resolution, although took a rocky and circuitous route to get there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bayesian

I see that you are a statistician; right? At the Talk: Tenedos page there is a lot of discussion on how to use or understand Google searches on the names Tenedos and Bozcaada. Could you possibly visit the page (there is a RfC) and evaluate or contrıbute to conflicting views about how to read the relevant Google searches? P.S. I am also aware that you are an Admin. If my request can be seen as canvassing please ignore my message. (Frankly I do not understand why asking people -without picking them among a group of users known to edit in this or that certain way- could be considered canvassing, anyhow.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will check it out. I am an actuary, which means I have some statistical training, but not formally a statistician. (Some editors think the no canvassing policy means no contacting anyone, at any time. It doesn't mean that, but I understanding why some are hypersensitive.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken only a brief look, but will not be able to do it justice at the moment. I have an intense two day training seminar coming up, and need to prepare. I didn't see a straight-forward statistical issue. I think the argument that the Google Books result may be skewed toward historical, rather than contemporary results is intriguing, but would like to look at it closer. Sorry, I cannot do it justice at the moment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope everything goes well with the seminar. All the best...--E4024 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Help: OTRS Permission confirmation

Greetings Sphilbrick, hope everything is still well with you, I want to let you know that I have sent a email for four images ("File:Kwasi Danquah III (performing).jpg", "File:Kwasi Danquah III (autographs).jpg", File:Kwasi Danquah III..jpg, File:Kwasi Danquah III.jpg) using the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I was urgently hoping if you can please help me to process and fast track the images with OTRS ticket numbers, so that my email will not be lost with others. Once again Sphilbrick, I'am forever grateful for all that you have done for me – MarkMysoe (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've done this before, but do not think it is a good habit. OTRS was largely caught up, but I see that it is a bit backlogged again. I'm unable to do anything at OTRS until Thursday, due to real life backlogs. If it hasn't been handled by then, poke me again and I'll address it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'am really so sorry Sphilbrick, I know it looks like it is becoming a habit. The reason why I needed it rushed was because I'am about to travel in 8 hours for long distances until 25 September 2012 I will be away from a computer and internet, and that was why I was hoping you can fast track the four images for me ("File:Kwasi Danquah III (performing).jpg", "File:Kwasi Danquah III (autographs).jpg", File:Kwasi Danquah III..jpg, File:Kwasi Danquah III.jpg) with the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries that I have used in the email sent. I would have liked to have known before I started my long travels that the four images had received their OTRS ticket numbers. I want to thank you again for your past help, I really do appreciate everything you have done for me, I would be forever grateful if you could help this once again due to my travels. Once again Sphilbrick, I'am forever grateful for all that you have done for me – MarkMysoe (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Previously deleted article : "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography"

Hi,

Last week I created the page "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography". It was deleted for copyright infringement because of its similarities to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2126571. I am the research assistant for the professor who posted that SSRN document. He had asked me to turn the document into a wikipedia page for public review/alteration. I informed him about your requirements to donate a document/information and he has made the appropriate changes to his SSRN article by adding the phrase "The text of this page and the attached downloadable document are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Please advise regarding how to create the original wikipedia page in question - "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography".

Thank you,

Keaupuni (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in all day meetings. Will try to look at tomorrow.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it, and added a note to the talk page. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!Keaupuni (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:WardrobeTrendsFashion-Screenshot.jpg

Does the licence apply to the images or only to the text? I suspect that the website only holds the copyright to the text.

For example, this website sources the largest image to "rowme.com" with a link to http://www.romwe.com/multi-point-spike-headband-p-35889.html. This website has a link to the same page at "rowme.com". Google suggests that the image appears on the same page at rowme.com. Nothing useful in the EXIF.

The second image on the row with lots of images also appears here. WardrobeTrendsFashion has a cropped version and the one on the forum shows a lot more. Reading other posts in the forum thread, I get the impression that the image originally comes from some Dolce & Gabbana catalogue or publication. Nothing useful in the EXIF of this high-resolution copy.

The Facebook photos are obviously not owned by the WardrobeTrendsFashion website, but they could maybe be argued to be de minimis. However, the other images look more troubling to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The permission clearly states the image.

The permission is provided by the managing director and founder of the site. I recently got into a long discussion with someone trying to license an image where I questioned some elements of the image. They eventually gave up. However, that was an amateur, this appears to be a professional, and I assume (maybe incorrectly) that they know whether they can license a shot of their own publication.) Do you think we need evidence of permission on all the underlying elements?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Heatherawalls's talk page.
Message added 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

heather walls (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

I have mentioned your name at User talk:Johnfos#CCI notice and thought it would be polite to let you know... Johnfos (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lawrence Deletion

Why did you delete the Mark Lawrence page? I spent some time adjusting it so it was acceptable and you just go and delete it for no reason. All I did was copy the About the Author he uses everywhere. If you really think it was a copyright infringement, you could have just sourced it in a second. I didn't bother to save what I wrote because I didn't think a wiki page could be so surreptitiously deleted without any real reason with no record of the edits. I mean the author himself posted about it on his facebook page, and when I saw how crappy the page is I tried to make it better.

If you were to put it back up, I'd have no problem fixing it, either by putting it in quotes and referencing it, or creating something new, though that may be difficult as his extended personal info isn't around anywhere (I think it's because of his day job). I'd even have no problem creating a new page, but it would be annoying to redo all of the wikipedia formatting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigZ7337 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC) BigZ7337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I missed that your addition of copyrighted material wasn't the creation of an article, you were adding it to an existing article, although it had been created only a few hours earlier. I was surprised to see that you hadn't been notified, as I always check to make sure the editor is notified. I see what happened. The editor that created it is Naelphin, who was notified. It is quite unusual to have an article created by one editor, get proposed for PROD, then copyvio edits by a separate person, and proposed for CSD all in the same day. Sorry, I missed that. I have restored it to the version without the copyright infringements. It is now an article which deserves deletion for other reasons, but I'll let it run its course. Which includes the possibility that you decide to improve it without infringing on copyright.

Your suggestion that I could simply sourced it is flawed for two reasons. First it took you maybe 30 seconds to copy and paste copyrighted material into the article. One cannot simply add a reference - that's not allowed. It would have to be rewritten, and referenced, which would take a hour or so. Your 30 seconds edit does not impose on me an obligation to rewrite an article. It was a violation, so I removed it. However, I am sympathetic that Wikipedia formatting is painful, at first. If you want to propose a rewrite, and drop is here, or on the talk page and let me know, I'll be happy to help with the formatting, as long as it is in your words, and not a copy-paste or close paraphrase.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, the copy and paste is the least of what I did, I reorganized the whole page to be more presentable, and by reverting it to before I edited (without letting me see or copy what I changed) it would give me the same work as if you had completely deleted it. The whole reason that the article was getting attention was because the author himself posted a link on his facebook about it. I saw how crappy it was (which is now what it is back to) and I fixed it. Then the douche bag that initially proposed deletion with horrible spelling (reddogsix) was apparently annoyed that someone tried to fix it and requested speedy deletion. The whole thing is just incredibly goofy and frankly a little rude. I would have no problem rewriting an original about the author, but I would like to have everything back below that, as there was nothing wrong with it and the wiki formatting would be annoying to do all over. Is there any way that you could show my last edit, or is there someway for you to copy and paste that part of the edit here or in an email? Also, should I just create a new page for it instead of using the one already there? BigZ7337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I spent a decent amount of time fixing up the page. I've been a long term Wikipedia user, but this is really my first time editing a whole page. If you get the chance, let me know what you think of my changes. Here's the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lawrence_%28Writer%29 Thanks, and now I realize that you didn't randomly delete the page, you deleted it because some else called for a prompt/speedy deletion (for dubious reasons in my mind), and you were just answering his call. BigZ7337 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better. It could still use some independent references, but nice job so far. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ALWAYS ELABORATE AND EXPLAIN CHANGES TO BE MADE AND GIVE ATLEAST ONE DAYS TIME BEFORE YOU DELETE A CONTRIBUTION.

I came here because you deleted my contribution to the article Rani Maria Vattalil,not elaborating on the reason. You have not explained for what,who,how,where,which all,why elaborately and fully,?you didnt say what all parts OF MY CONTRIBUTION are copyright violation and how it became a copyright violation,? I would like to know what attracted you to this article AND TO DELETE MY CONTRIBUTION. Came by yourself? or some body requested ?

and I want you to know that i will go to teahouse if i feel like i need help or assistance.Deleting the contributions of a user is not the way to force him to join teahouse. and wikipedia is not the only wiki on the internet,how do you know that i am NOT an experienced editor.?

If you were an experienced editor , you would have put elaborated and well explained good reasons saying why,what all,which lines and what could have been good edits and what all are copyright violation ON MY tALK PAGE OR ARTICLE TALKPAGE.

===== Do not delete another users contributions for a BARNSTAR or points, or IF you are angry or if somebody suggests without properly explained reason and ready to offer you a BARNstar if you delete it and most importantly DO NOT DELETE without first informing the contributor to improve or change his edits you consider not right and without inviting for discussion. And you should give atleast ONE DAY time before deleting it. ===== ===== I donot know you personally,but i feel like you are doing this for a BARNSTAR OR for forcing me to join TEAHOUSE.

=====

Please understand,,,,,What if i have more talent and editorial skills than you? ANd what if i know wikipedia rules and userS AND AdminS behaviour MORE than you?

NOTE: i am also a busy person,but i am a friendly user with whom you can discuss and suggest changes and improvements.LET me myself make changes and give me atleast ONE DAY TIME before you Delete it.buT YOU SHOULD elaborate AND explain THE CHANGES TO BE MADE.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you feel that way. I'm puzzled at your suggestions that you might be an experienced editor: how do you know that i am NOT an experienced editor, and what if i know wikipedia rules. I have no idea how much you know about Wikipedia rules or editing. What I do know is that you are unaware of our stance on copyright violations. We do not have, and will not have a "one-day" allowance for copyright violations. My intention is to remove them immediately as soon as I see them. On rare occasions, there will be a mistake, and something will be removed that is, in fact, properly licensed. Of of the hundreds I have deleted, that has happened once that I recall, and it was quickly restored. We do not want anyone to think that posting material in violation of copyrights is acceptable.

I am not "forcing" you to go to the Teahouse. Removal of copyright violations are done rather abrupt, although links to reasons are always given. The Teahouse is a place where editors (including myself, take the time to answer questions and patiently explain things. That sounds like something you would like. If not, that's fine as well.

I hope you are a good editor and want to contribute. The article on Rani Maria Vattalil is in poor shape and could use a good editor to improve it. I hope you are that editor. But improving it means adding material in your own words, or, in a very limited way, using short passages in quotes with proper references. I hope that is your goal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You said:

If you were an experienced editor , you would have put elaborated and well explained good reasons saying why,what all,which lines and what could have been good edits and what all are copyright violation ON MY tALK PAGE OR ARTICLE TALKPAGE.

In most cases, one editor tags the article with a request for deletion template, and adds a note to the talk page, with a link to the policy. In those cases, I can usually check that it is, indeed, a copyright violation, and then simply delete it. There's no need to ire out a long explanation, as the short statement is sufficient, although if the editor doesn't understand, I am always willing to explain. In this case, I sensed that you might be unaware of the rules, so I made a point posting on your talk page, as well as the article talk page. So the oddity is that I usually need to do neither, while in this case I did both, yet you are complaining that there should be explanations in both places. In short, there are. They may be less wordy that you would like, but if you want more, as you apparently do, just ask, and I'll tell you more. That's how this place works.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I got the email, will look into the next steps later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cory Monteith

Could you check please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cory_Monteith?, could there be an exception since Cory Monteith never appeared on DYK and it's almost impossible to expand his article so much? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't think of any reason it should be an exception. The point of DYK isn't to promote people you like, it is to encourage brand-new articles, or substantial expansions of existing articles. The rules can be bent a little in exceptional cases, but this isn't a close call. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And how much expansion does it need to be reconsidered for DYK? Thank you. The fact is that I just love him. Timothyhere (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the DYK rules it would have to be expanded by a factor of five over 5 days. That's not feasible.

Not every article is appropriate for a DYK. I've worked on dozens of articles that didn't qualify, and I care deeply about some of the subjects.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)