User talk:Sphilbrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CSD nomination of Harshhussey articles[edit]

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


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

Gender Gap Strategy: Join us for a call![edit]

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

2015 already[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been away for a few days, trying to dig out form under, but here for the long haul.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about Draft:Calin Rovinescu Page Deletion[edit]

Hello, This is a friendly follow-up on a page I submitted for review that was deleted (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of Full disclosure, I work for Air Canada so I would like to avoid any conflict of interest by submitted an article for review. Two questions: 1. the page sited under G12 is an Air Canada page. Do you require a special permission to use this page? 2. May I have advise on what could be changed in the draft to avoid duplicating G12 again?


Thanks for any advice.

Timbuktwo 2 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - see response in post above. Will try to look soon, later today I hope.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Merging WNBA player and basketball biography templates[edit]

There is currently a proposal here to merge the "Infobox:WNBA player" template into the "Infobox:basketball biography" template (as has already been agreed to via the consensus process). Please weigh in on the proposal to make this happen. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. I wanted to ask again if you could weigh in on this. We've had good discussion and my sense is that we're close to a workable solution to merge these. That said, I am nervous that no big women's hoops editors like yourself have commented yet. I'd hate to decide on a path just to find it doesn't work. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
  • Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification[edit]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about GamerGate Arbcom[edit]

This case is long and complicated, and looking at all the statements and evidence posts this is an unenviable possition to be in. Which makes this question that much more awkward: Though the time to submit evidence has obviously already elapsed, could evidence that *couldn't possibly* have been submitted at the time because it was only known to be applicable after the fact?

My example would be the fact that it was only this week that the NorthBySouthBaranof admitted that he was the previous Wikipedia users FCYTravis and Polarscribe, and he was previously rebuked by admins on Wikipedia for edit warring, abuse of admin tools, article ownership, uncivil bahior, and sockpuppeting, and this could give important context to his actions in this case:'_noticeboard/Archive_25#Resysopping

I don't know who is available in what timeframe, so hopefully one of you guys is available to get back to me soon.

Thank you for your time. WhatOnEar (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Outing/Gamergate issue.[edit]

Hello, Sphilbrick. I was going to ask both you and User:Ks0stm about a comment made on a RfC, but I have found out that Ks0stm is ill at the moment. So, I would like to request that if you do not wish or cannot respond to this that, if you are able, if you could redirect me to an user who might be able. Here is the diff and here is the revelant portion of the quote with my emphasis added: (...) Both are things where there will, of course, often be doubtful cases where the connection is not safe enough to justify action, but there is no reason to think it categorically impossible to reach a reasonable degree of certainty in some. We all know that there is at least one case in connection with the recent Gamergate fracas where it's plain obvious to everybody with half a brain that editor "L." on Wikipedia is the same person as participant "L." in a certain troll forum; I, for one, will not be silenced from speaking out about this obvious fact, whenever I choose to. I was wondering if the user could be warned not to imply a connection that is not proven. (I will note here that the RfC also has tones of the Gamergate issue.) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Burns, Texas[edit]

Hi. I created the page Burns, Texas and I noticed that you deleted a page with that title before due to copyright. I revised the page so it did not infringe copyright--Elijahadmire (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrator page[edit]

Letting you known as gamergate case clerk: There's a lot of churn on User talk:GorillaWarfare, might want to keep an eye on it. NE Ent 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. It's been a while since I've bothered you about Request Edits and I was wondering if you had time to take a look at a few of mine, such as this one on Heather Bresch. I've been scrounging looking for editors to chime in on a few pages, but been getting a lot of "I'm busy with other stuff" type responses. CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm a bit backed up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not getting better yet.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate summary[edit]

The Ryulong site ban is passing 7-5-1, it is listed in the summary table as failing 4-4. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry[edit]

Hello! The page I created, BetaPsiOmega was deleted for copyrighting reasons that I do not understand as I am the individual that created the original information and it is not yet copyrighted. Could you shed some light on why this was deleted and how I might be able to resubmit this page? It seems that you are the deletion editor. (18:05, 26 November 2013 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Psi Omega) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betapsiomega (talkcontribs)

I see that a draft of an article, Draft:Beta Psi Omega was deleted, though not by me. It was deleted because it appeaared to infringe on which is subject to copyright.
Do I have the wrong article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that you are not talking about the recent deletion in January of this year, but a deletion which occurred a couple years ago. I'll look further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Betapsiomega: I found it. The Article for Creation was not deleted due to copyright reasons. It was deleted because reviewers identified some issues:
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."
and then it was abandoned for over six months.
I'm adding a link, which you cannot see, but it will help me in case further questions arise. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Psi Omega--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1 article[edit]

Could you please move any one article to User:Titodutta/villages/TITLE with a noindex magic word? I want to check few things and discuss with a few users who can't see deleted content. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done User:Titodutta/villages/Bommanjogi--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


The article Do-ocracy has been deleted and re-created as many as 5 times. Due to obvious reasons, it is requested that all deleted revisions be restored. SD0001 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite so obvious to me. Are you looking for past contributions to be userfied somewhere?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. I was trying to think of someone I haven't pestered in a while to look at some Request Edits and I was wondering if you had time to hammer out a couple simple ones.[1][2] CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My current "free time" is addressing the 1400 Permission requests at OTRS. That said, I'll see if I can take a break from that and look into a request edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I addressed the first (though I ended up suggesting more changes are needed.) I looked at the second, and see others are involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was surprised to see your name pop up on my watchlist, because I had figured this was long forgotten by now. There is more context about the Shaygan Kheradpir article here. It needs more editors involved that actually do not have a COI. However, it probably won't be a "quick fix" type of case and it's always hard to drag editors into that kind of thing. I do have another simple one here which is actually regarding making the page less promotional and so shouldn't be much of a COI problem. I've suggested a Request Edit|G since it would involve a large number of tedious edits that would be a burden for someone to do by proxy. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Miyagi Zaō Fox Village[edit]

Could you undelete this article at User:Makkachin/Miyagi Zaō Fox Village so that I can further expand it until it reaches acceptable lengths? Is there an automated way for article authors to "view source" of a "deleted" article so that editors don't have to bother moderators? --Makkachin (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
There is no automated way to do this, for good reason. That said, I contemplated not doing this. It is a single sentence. I spent much more time doing this than it would have taken you you rewrite a single sentence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What did I miss?[edit]

I'm a little concerned about this edit of yours at Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Is this normal practice for when some random individual contacts the Foundation with a request to add a link to their favorite conspiracy theory news site? I would have expected the usual protocol when someone with no particular personal relationship to an article says "Hey, you guys should use this link!" would be to refer them (perhaps with some boilerplate text) to some introductory material on how Wikipedia works, and where to find article talk pages. It looks sort of weird to get a message from the Foundation (even if the WMF is just the messenger...?) that implies that this sort of silly article even might be a "helpful source".

So, should editors be reading something here as "behind the scenes" or "between the lines"? Are there legal threats, real or implied? I mean, my understanding – which may be mistaken – is that the WMF mostly takes a hands-off attitude to Wikipedia content, as long as we're following our policies and not egregiously embarrassing the project.

Or is saying "I'll be sure to let them know about your concern" just the quickest way to get the anti-vaccination wingnuts out of the WMF's email queue? (And should we just thank you for not sending them directly to be a nuisance on the talk page? Though I do feel a bit bad for User:DoctorJoeE, who's probably wasted the time he's spent composing a detailed rebuttal to a person who's likely never going to read it.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is normal practice, but perhaps it should be. As you know, but I'll emphasize in case anyone else is reading this and reads too quickly, I did not add the link to the article. I occasionally have done so, but only after investigation and consideration of whether it belonged. Instated, a person who could easily have added the note to the talk page, but did not because they didn't know how Wikipedia worked, contacted Wikipedia concerned that the article was biased and suggesting a site with relevant information. In the past, I have sometimes suggested that they bring it up on the talk page, which is the proper place for the discussion, but I also recognize that many people, who have never edited Wikipedia, are not sure how to do that, so I often add a note tot he talk page, then respond to the individual that they can continue the discussion on the talk page. We don't want OTRS to be a place to argue such issues.
The one thing you said that concerns me is the possibility that the wording could leave the impression that the comment had the imprimatur of the Foundation. That would be unacceptable, but I've reread my edit, and can't for the life of me, imagine how anyone would get that impression. If someone does, let me know, so I can improve the wording, because I do this sort of thing on a semi-regular basis.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one important correction. They did not get a message from the Foundation. I did not mention the Foundation in my response to the person, or in my edit. The email response comes with a note making it quite clear that it is not from the Foundation. Here's the wording:
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to
be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official
correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address
listed on Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't say or insinuate that the person got a particular message from the Foundation. I said that you left a message from the Foundation on the talk page of our article—to a naive reader like me, it reads like that, even if that wasn't your intent. Your edit (diff above) opened with "A reader contacted Wikimedia..." (I presumed that 'Wikimedia' was the Wikimedia Foundation) and thereby implies that what follows is from a Foundation representative.
I'm less concerned about whatever message(s) you might have sent to this individual, and more concerned with the implicit (and perhaps unintended) message you sent to the enwiki editors when you mentioned Wikimedia (the WMF) in your talk page message. When someone mentions WMF and points out a link on an article talk page, there's a subtextual hint that WMF wants us to look really closely at something. Bear in mind that the editors on the enwiki talk page don't automatically see or presume the disclaimers that may exist on the WMF's pages or may be attached to emails that you send.
In this instance, it's obvious that some editors took your edit as a serious suggestion from someone 'important' and spent a disproportionate amount of time rebutting a very poor suggestion on that basis. I don't know if you reviewed the content or context of the link that you passed on, but do bear in mind that even though you didn't add the link directly to the article, your talk page edit still imposed measurable – and frankly unnecessary – costs on editors who already put up with a lot. Please keep this in mind in the future; a little less brevity can sometimes be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think of Wikimedia as the Wikimedia Foundation, but as the generic name meaning Wikipedia, and other associated projects, such as Commons, Wiktionary, etc. If someone else thanks that the reference to Wikimedia would be viewed as shorthand for Wikimedia Foundation, please let me know and suggest an alternative. In this specific case, they were contacting a site about Wikipedia, but I handle more tickets for Commons than Wikipedia, so I adopted Wikimedia as a generic term. (In the past, I considered stating that someone has contacted OTRS, and have sometimes used that language, but many editors don't know what that means).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In general usage I've found that when people refer to 'Wikimedia', they mean the umbrella organization – the Foundation – rather than the entire conglomeration of Foundation projects, or OTRS, or some other component. (Heck, Wikimedia is a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation.) By far the preferred option is to be explicit, however; just say Commons or Meta or OTRS or English Wikipedia. And if you're not sure that other editors will know what OTRS is (a legitimate concern, certainly), it's far better to explain yourself (if nothing else, WP:OTRS is a bluelink) than to substitute an ambiguous – and potentially ominous – term.
As to the actual content of your edit, I'm bothered that, essentially, you decided that it was worthwhile to pass on the link from the OTRS message, but not to educate the person who sent it, or to evaluate the content before deciding that the article's editors should waste time on it. In other words, you gave the person what they wanted (kind of), but you didn't give that person the help they needed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a fair point that I ought to take the time to identify whether it is Wikipedia or Commons. Working at OTRS feels like drinking from a fire hose, and I may have taken a short cut I shouldn't have taken. I'll try to change that.
As to the content, in the past, I have taken the time to write out how the person can add the comment to the talk page. I still do on occasion, but sometimes find it is faster to do it myself than to explain. With the backlog, I'm looking for faster options.
They didn't get what they wanted. They wanted me to rewrite the article using the material at the link. I didn't even touch the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 33rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hard to believe it was three years ago. Seems like the other day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg
I agree. Those were the day of reformation (first link under the lead image on my user page) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope, pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deborah Valdez - Hung's Page[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,we would like to recreate our page for Deborah by replacing refined content, which we believe suits Wikipedia's guidelines/policies. PLease advice what we should do now to upload the refined content. Thank you in advance. Yvonne202.175.98.170 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If you substantially rewrite the article, you are free to start over.
I urge you to enlist people not close to the subject to review the wording. Phrases such as “ combining her passion for fashion and business”, “boasting a growing portfolio of over 700 models” and “intimately involved in a number of charities” are phrases one might find in a marketing blurb, not an encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise. Based on your last comments, we have rephased or deleted those sentences that might find in a marketing blurb. However, should we draft the new content in Sandbox for review before we post it officially? YvonneRare.Remarkable SH (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's really up to you. If you post it in a sandbox, you can ask for a review which takes time, but might provide helpful advise which will prevent deletion. Just posting it as an article will get it up faster, but may also result in a more abrupt deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Many new articles fail because editors do not have enough references to justify inclusion – while I only spend a couple minutes looking at the article in question, my recollection is that it had quite a few references, and failed because of wording issues. Given that, if you have addressed that issue, it may be worth going for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Janét Aizenstros[edit]

Please check Ticket:2015012710003532. Jee 16:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I deleted it because it was created by a banned or blocked user, not due to copyright concerns (although I see that it had earlier been deleted for that reason.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's OK; You may handle/close that ticket accordingly. Jee 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of the deleted article[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick,

I'm writing to you to ask you to restore the deleted article about The Millennium Project - here is the link:

I want to update missing informations, links etc. regarding this article and connect it to the existing The Millennium Project pages in Polish, Deutsch, Spanish and Portugues Wikipedia.

Please advise me what steps I have to take to restore this article.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmora (talkcontribs) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article I deleted was simply a redirect to State of the Future which was deleted by User:RoySmith. Please check with that admin.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, this gets complicated. Millennium Project was originally proposed for deleteion 10 years ago, and was kept by a near unanimous margin. Of course, that was 10 years ago, and community norms have changed since then. It next came up for review about 6 months ago, where it was @Spinningspark: redirected to State of the Future in a very close decision, and that is the article I eventually deleted, also by a less-than-overwhelming consensus. Adding to the confusion, there appears to be (from the last AfD) two different things which are referred to as Millenium Project, one associated with the UN, and one not. I'm not sure at this point which one we're even discussing here. My inclination is to short-circuit a lot of DRV wiki-lawyering and just restore the 10 year old version of Millenium Project to draft space, where @Zmora: can then work on improving it with an eye towards possibly moving it back to main article space at some point in the future. Does that seem like a reasonable plan? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you could tell me who had originally created the AfC draft of Game Masters (exhibition) that I later expanded and brought to mainspace. I see from this link that you deleted the draft but I would like to know the identity of the editor who originally created it so I can give credit where credit is due. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thibbs: It was created by an IP A couple others contributed by looks like copy editing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've given proper credit now. -Thibbs (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)