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.

Dematerialization[edit]

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]

Mail-message-new.svg
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.

Do-ocracy[edit]

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)

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

Bookshelf.jpg

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennium_Project

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)

Hello Sphilbrick,

that sounds very good, we can proceed with this plan. I will also contact User:RoySmith regarding the State of the Future article.

Many thanks!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmora (talkcontribs) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored a recent version of this to Draft:The Millennium Project. The entire history is there, so you can go back in time and find older material which had been removed. You can work on it there, and possibly at some time, if the issued raised at the last AfD are corrected, it might get moved back into main article space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
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.

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 203.14.59.19. A couple others contributed by but it 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)

FYI[edit]

Just as an FYI: I incidentally mentioned you in a post on Jimbo's page. No response needed or expected, but thought you should know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I am fully immersed in the Fnal Four, and barely paying attention to Wikipedia until it is over (tonight) and I get back home (maybe next Tuesday)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I've now read that discussion. Although I am an Arbcom clerk, so should be very familiar with the Wifone case, I have been disengaged with Wikipedia for a few months, so did not follow it. I thnk-you for letting me know you mentioned me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Adele[edit]

Sorry to trouble you, but could you delete the Talk:Adele redirect as well so the talk page can be reunited with the article? Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@This is Paul:, I think @Hut 8.5: took care of this, let me know if I am mistaken.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I posted it shortly after you moved the article, but it looked like you'd gone offline so I db requested it then forgot to mention it here. It's all sorted out now though. This is Paul (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image selection[edit]

Since you participated at Talk:2014_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_choices, I am notifying you of Talk:2015_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NgREN Article deletion Contesting[edit]

Why would you do that? RENs all over the world have Wikipedia Articles. RENS are very important and notable the world over. Perhaps take a look at this and let me know if you still think its not notable: National research and education network . And I clearly marked it as Stub. What could be wrong with it? RENs in America and Europe have Wikipedia Articles , for example, CESNET and I do intend to document and write Wikipedia Articles on RENS in Africa. Mpmayenge (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mpmayenge: Please identify the article to which you refer and I will look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the article NgREN , see the Talk page. I am planning on compiling a list of all RENS in Africa and doing Wiki Articles on them. See this list National research and education network. Thanks. Mpmayenge (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mpmayenge: The "article" I deleted was a single sentence. Please look at Wikipedia:Drafts and consider using that namespace, or a Help:Userspace draft to develop an article, then move into main space when it is ready to stand on its own.

Deleted article[edit]

Hello S. Thanks for deleting List of awards and nominations received by Mel Brooks. The talk page for that article also had some items (wikiproject banners) on it. I have never known whether talk pages should be deleted when the article is. I went ahead and blanked it but I thought I would check with you to see if anything more needed to be done. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I usually look for talk pages when I delete an article, but missed this one. Thanks for pointing it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Your welcome and thanks for following up on this. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sharmishta Roy[edit]

Hi, I see that this article was recently deleted (under the G5 criteria). I'd like to recreate the page as she is a highly notable art director in Indian cinema. Vensatry (ping) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I copied the content to: User:Vensatry/Sharmishta Roy. I trust you know to give proper permission for the original, if you use any of it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of an article deleted for a G5 violation[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick, I noticed you deleted the article Italian Massaua per G5, at the time of its creation I reviewed this article and also gave the creator (unaware they were a sock) a barnstar for their excellent work on this subject... it would be possible to restore the article with me taking responsability for it? if not, could you userfy the article at User:Cavarrone/ItMassaua so that I could work on it and possibly expand it a bit as to re-create it? Thanks in advance. --Cavarrone 09:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI this was proxying you accidentaly facilitated, regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this is NOT proxing. As I wrote above, at the time of its creation I reviewed this article and also gave the creator a barnstar, i.e. I had a previous interest for the article before its deletion and no relations with this user (I didn't know he was either banned or a sock) outside my appreciation for the creation of such article. The subject of the article is obviously notable and I requested userfication just because I found silly to throw a decent/good article in the toilet just because it was created from the "wrong guy". I am working on it, especially in the direction of verifing the sourcing and avoiding OR. You Vituzzu have to wait I have restored the article before eventually complaining about lack of notability or other issues, from what you wrote here it looks like you consider its existence as "an apology of colonialism", I respectfully disagree and certainly this is not my intent. Cavarrone 14:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll let you two work this out, but if more needs to be said, please take it elsewhere, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Request for undeletion were made before LTA's message to Cavarrone, so proxying exists, I hope it won't bring to facilitating BDA's evasions. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I publicly expressed my interest for the article/subject way before the speedy deletion of the article, and way before its creator's account was revealed as a sock of a banned user. You should try to assume good faith Vituzzu, especially towards an editor with over 2,600 articles and over 44,000 edits under his belt. Then, if you have additional issues, let's discuss on my talk page, or on the draft talk page, or somewhere else, as per Philbrick's suggestion. Cavarrone 21:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Category redirects[edit]

Hi! You deleted three category redirects I made (Rolf Haris songs, Rolph Harris songs, Rolph Haris songs). I made these soft redirects in case his name is misspelled. Bots patrol the redirects and move the pages in them to the target. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note they show up here: Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category and were deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. I'm not up for debating it now, but be aware that someone else is likely to delete them, so if you want them saved, you'll have to come up with a solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your act of vandalism ...[edit]

... here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2015

You claim A10. But:

1)The article hasn't been created recently, but half a year ago.

2)It very much has a relevant page history with dozens of entries.

3)It does NOT duplicate the page which you claim (or any other on the wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Month lists the names and nothing else, whereas the deleted page substantially expanded on it, added a lot of detail and improved the level of information noticably.

Feel free to look up "Diligence" in a dictionary. 93.192.225.175 (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of the list, List of Playboy Playmates of 2015, did you happen to read what I posted to the talk page of that list? Dismas|(talk) 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Why you deleted this article? I see nothing of vandalism or false information, In addition, are other lists completely equal to this, or you not wise that exist in other lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.131.134.155 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is tempting to deny or simply ignore this request, to help deliver the message that being rude is not the way to get things done. I'm tempted to urge you to look up "clueless" in a dictionary, because accusing an admin of vandalism in this context is gobsmackingly clueless. However, your inability to be civil, aswell as your lack of grasp of how this place works means it is doubtful you will be a long-term productive contributor, but that is orthogonal to the question of whether the article deserves deletion. At least @Dismas: made some polite and cogent comments. What should be done with this and similar articles is beyond the scope of CSD and deserves more discussion, but I agree that removing one and only one is not the way to push that discussion ahead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my points into consideration. And for reinstating the article. I appreciate it. I'm sorry that you had to put up with the rude comments of the IP editors. Have a good day, Dismas|(talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. Feel free to give in to this temptation. 93.192.225.175 (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Want to redo deleted page.[edit]

Hello, some time ago you had deleted a page: Nebraska Latino American Commission. I would like to redo this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasel.Cantu (talkcontribs) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't find such a page. I can find deleted pages, but I need the exact spelling, or the date. Were you the editor? I can find it that way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean Draft:Nebraska Latino American Commission? That exists - I see it was recently restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please refrain from inserting misleading edit summaries like this one. It's just bad form. When edit-warring to push a POV, you shouldn't pretend otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

?? How on earth is it misleading? Are you saying the inclusion is NOT in dispute?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You're an admin now. That doesn't mean you can't POV push, but you need to do a better job of being honest. "Skeptic" alone is just as much in dispute as "denial". They're both well-supported. And no high-quality source cited appears to disputes that they're synonyms. So removing one term, and delinking it is POV pushing. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. Just be honest about it. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I was attempting to return to a term, "skeptic", that has been in the article for years.
If you now want to question that term, that is your right, but we need to leave the page in some state while you and others make your case, and the usual approach is use a version prior to the edit war. In rare cases, a war may start when some identifies a glaring problem that has escaped the notice of others for a long time, but that isn't the case here.
In any event I stand by my statement that the inclusion of the word "denial" is in dispute. If you would like to additional declare that the term skeptic is in dispute, be my guest, but that doesn't make my edit summary misleading.
Please be exceedingly careful about challenging my honesty. I may hold opinions that aren't universal, and heaven knows i make a lot of mistakes, but being dishonest is a strong charge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

WUWT[edit]

Seems you and I may have divergent views on WUWT. Given the astroturfing appeal by Watts, I think it's likely that some non-trivial intervention will be required. I wonder if we might work together to try to manage the discussions, on the basis that anything on which we agree is likely to pass pretty much any review? I won't be offended if you decline, since I am entirely aware that I am a rude and obnoxious bastard, but I rather hope you won't. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dinner calls, will respond, positively overall.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I was frankly expecting more activity as a result of the post at WUWT. I think I've read every comment to that post. One of the common themes is the true, but missing the point observation that Wikipedia is not a valid reference for academic research. No shit, but they all say it as if it would offend Wikipedia editors. At least one commencer posted that they were unable to edit due to the protection and none noted the single revert notice (and misunderstood it). Obviously, I cannot assume that any WUWT reader who attempts to edit the article or the talk page will mention it in a comment, but I was surprised how few comments there were along those lines. My gut reaction, not having done a survey is that most of those contributing to the talk page are regulars, and clearly given the full protection, none of those editing the article are drivebys. That said the issue is contentious, and care must be taken, whether or not the discussion is influenced by a non-representative sample. I think I will take a look at who is commenting, and see if something jumps out. I see WMC in the WUWT comments and in the Wikipedia article, I trust he can be viewed as a Wikipedia editor first and a WUWT commenter second, in other words, not part of the WUWT crowd, even if he happened to become aware of the issue by reading the WUWT post.
Getting back to you main proposal, which I hope isn't swayed by my initial reaction to your RfC, I agree that if the two of us can agree on something, it ought be generally acceptable. I wonder how overlapping our Venn diagrams are? My hope is that they are more overlapping that you might think (I agree CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I agree AGW exists, I agree ameliorative actions deserve support), but I'm still worried.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


I did a cursory review of the comments at WUWT to see if I could identify anyone who might have been persuaded to come to the WP article or talk page. My review was fruitless. I didn't notice any names (other than WMC) that I recognize here. Obviously, they may be using a different name, or might have read the post and not commented, in which case I wouldn't know their name.
I also looked at recent contributors to the article and talk page. There are only a handful of IPs, and those haven't said much. Most of the registered users are names I recognize, so my intial reaction is that there is not a lot of involvement by SPAs. I do not say this to argue there is nothing to be worried about, just to suggest that among the list of challenges we face, this doesn't seem to be at the top of the list. That said, if the RfC gets organized, it may be worth a cautionary note to the closing admin.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, on reflection I think you are right. There is evidence of the flying monkeys, but I think it is reasonably obvious that they won't get very far, and I think it's likely that they have not really tried that hard: if the article was still open it would undoubtedly be a nightmare but most of these off-wiki campaigns don't really result in any long-term talk page engagement, though sometimes (e.g. Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) one of the partisans hangs around. There are a couple of people I think probably will end up topic banned. The real solution is, as usual, more eyes, and thoughtful discussion of focused proposals for change. I am less gloomy about this than I was a couple of days ago, anyway. Offer stands: if things get rough, I think we can act firmly and jointly and that will be perceived as fair. Unfortunately, most admins new to the article will just look at the whole mess and flee. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, will read shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I has missed, until reviewing the history, that @A Quest For Knowledge: was the editor who originally reverted @Mann jess:, and included a reference to WP:WTW. I think this is relevant for two reasons:

  1. I'd like to think that I am paying attention to the sequence of events, so if I missed it, I suspect others did as well.
  2. If one reverts an edit, with a specific reference to a relevant guideline, it is understandable that a subsequent RfC, not even hinting that a relevant guideline not just exists but was cited in the reversion, might make one a tad annoyed, and think the missing information is not just relevant, but ought to be upfront.

My view is that the first attempt to insert the information near the top of the RfC was understandable (perhaps clumsily executed; I see claims it led to confusion about who said what.) If the reversion was simply because of that confusion, it is unfortunate that the substance was missed, namely that the RfC is arguably a waste of time, if participants are unaware of a highly relevant guideline.

That doesn't excuse a second attempt to re-insert it. In the same way I think Mann jess has failed to follow the spirit of BRD, so has AQFK. I would support the inclusion of a notice near the top of the RfC, but given the contentious nature of the discussion, I would have preferred a discussion, lower on the page, proposing such an edit and getting concurrence before doing it again. That said, this is small beer. In the context of Wikipedia, this isn't even a molehill. The edits of AQFK aren't going to be exhibit one in our article about perfect editing examples, but neither are they worth wasting the valuable time of the hard working contributors to the DS process.

I am literally stunned that an editor with as much experience as Mann jess would appear so ignorant of 1RR, BRD, and other established processes, which might be unknown to newbies, but should be second nature to her. I hope someone will help her out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think your opinion on the content dispute is coloring your perception of my editing. You've made several errors in summarizing my behavior.
  • You alleged at AE that I broke 1RR with AQFK around the 18th. That's not true. I added content on the 17th, AQFK reverted me, and I went to the talk page. Several hours later, with no response from AQFK, I reverted and followed up on talk. I didn't revert again until the 21st. That's 1 revert within an 84 hour period.
    • It's worth noting that I hadn't even realized the article was under 1RR at this point (I missed the edit notice until very recently). That's just how I normally edit; if I add content and am reverted, I rarely re-revert.
    • It's also worth reading the section I started on talk. Please notice the timestamps, which show I was not getting any replies. When they did come days later, they barely even addressed the topic. (AQFK never responded to that section; indeed, his only contributions to the entire talk page have been 4 edits the RfC)
  • You have alleged that I'm ignorant of BRD. I'd like you to review the talk pages of Watts Up With That and Anthony Watts prior to WUWT's canvassing. Please note that my first edit to Anthony Watts wasn't until the 22nd, after I'd already been engaging on the talk page since the 17th. My edit summary on the 22nd was to point to emerging consensus on the talk page. On both pages, a multitude of my edits were repeatedly reverted, and I did not immediately re-revert. I leaned heavily on discussion, but mostly received replies like this one.
I get that we disagree about what word to use on an article, but try to separate your views on the content dispute from your assessment of behavior. My early efforts were to diplomatically work to build consensus (my first edits to Talk:Anthony Watts included praise of AQFK) I've worked primarily on just adding sources to both articles, but those were removed too. After being ignored, repeatedly reverted, and told several times to just go away, I've been understandably quite frustrated, and I've certainly engaged in behavior (between the 25th-30th in particular) that you could criticize. But to allege that my first contributions violated 1rr or that I haven't encouraged discussion is simply not true.   — Jess· Δ 17:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Fair point on the edit count. Many editors voluntarily adopt a no revert without discussion rule, but that is a zero revert rule not a one revert rule. I should have included the sequence as a BRD point. I struck through the comment.
  • I did guess you might have missed the 1RR note, that was mentioned in my original point
  • I've read your talk page post. While the general subject of Climate Change is contentious, there are only 71 editors watching the WUWT talk page (and I bet it was fewer at the time). A few days isn't a long time.
  • You've mention Anthony Watts (blogger) and the associated talk page a couple times, I have neither watchlisted, nor do I ever recall reading or editing either. Maybe I should, but for the present conversation, I fail to see the relevance
  • Separating content views from behavior views is always a good idea, and sometimes difficult to manage. It is something I try to achieve, I'm sorry to see that you think I failed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the activity pre and post canvassing, I'd guess the vast majority of those 71 editors arrived on the 25th. It's precisely due to that lack of participation that WP:BOLD is useful, and why first seeking consensus on a low-traffic article, as you've suggested I do, isn't likely to have been an effective approach. Everyone focuses on the RD, but B is often just as important. It's worth noting my approach was succesful; my bold edit and discussion encouraged a great deal of participation, even if the article doesn't currently reflect all my changes.
Your complaints were posted at AE, which primarily concerns behavior on Anthony Watts (blogger). AQFK has made only 4 comments at Talk:WUWT. One of those 4 was problematic, but the two pages are inexorably tied (in fact, it's possible they should be merged). I've referenced Watts because that's a focus point of the discussion, and because you cannot fully understand the conversation at one without also following the other. That's the relevance. My change was novel to WUWT, but had been under discussion and edit wars on Anthony Watts for many months.   — Jess· Δ 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping we could find some common ground, but it doesn’t look like that is happening. I’ll start with a “soft” disagreement; by that I mean an issue where we see it differently but I fully concede that many respectable editors hold a position similar to yours. That issue is the importance of the B in BRD. I think the concept of bold editing was an important one in the early days of Wikipedia but is less important in a more mature Wikipedia and especially inappropriate and highly contentious articles. I hope we (the community) have a broader discussion about this sometime; I may use this kerfuffle as Exhibit 1 in the argument against the support of bold editing.
You are pushing the canvassing issue. I think it is far less important than you suggest. If the recent editing and discussions were dominated by non-regular Wikipedians who arrived as a result of canvassing we might approach this dispute one way. It appears you think that is the situation (am I wrong?), but I don’t think that is the situation. Look at the major contributors to the article after your first edit:
  • Capitalismojo
  • A Quest For Knowledge
  • Tillman
  • Guettarda
  • Dave souza
  • TMLutas
  • DGaw
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Roxy the dog
  • JzG
  • ThePowerofX
These are all long time Wikipedians , many of whom I recognize from other climate change articles. To be sure does a small handful of IP’s, and a few new names, but the bulk of the editing is being done by the regulars. I haven’t pull together a list of contributors to the talk page but I glanced at it and it seemed to support the same conclusion, perhaps even more so. Mostly longtime regulars, mostly editors with experience in the climate change articles.
I realize you noticed that editing picked up following the canvassing but I think that’s mistaking the cause. Many of these regulars myself included are on each other’s watchlist. I don’t know whether you are on any of the regulars watchlist but my guess is you are now but were not then. Once I saw several of the regulars popping up on my watchlist I probably stopped in to see what was going on. I strongly suspect that many of the others arrived in the same way so it built on itself, as opposed to being an influx of readers of the site.
You are welcome to make a case for out on alternative view but I strongly suspect the regulars will disagree that we’ve had an influx of drive-bys.
My biggest surprise is your assertion that the AE complaint “primarily concerns behavior on Anthony Watts (blogger)”. As I already noted the opening couple of paragraphs are exclusively concerned with the site. While I did see you added some other diffs, I didn’t look at them. Most people are taught to start with the important material throw in fluff later if you really believe you did it the other way around you might want to make it clear. My entire statement was reacting to your charges about the WUWT edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that WP:BOLD is not significant, and while I don't have a problem with you holding that view, I find it strange that you would speak negatively of an editor for following a principal that's still encouraged in the five pillars. I also disagree that canvassing had little impact. The version before the blog post there were 5 sections (totaling 1,601 words) spanning the last month. Within two days there were 16 sections (19,459 words), 12 times the content. A week later, there are 23 sections (37,639 words), 23 times the content. Your pointer to editors who were active before the blog post implies none of WUWT's viewers were wikipedians who hadn't yet visited the article. I think that is demonstrably untrue. Obviously, some wikipedians read his blog, and took him up on his directive to change the article. Yes, the canvassing has undeniably impacted editor participation and the editing environment.
I organized my post at AE with the issue I felt was easiest to communicate. It's unfortunate you decided not to read past the first 2 paragraphs before commenting at AE, because the entire rest of my complaint is about behavior at Anthony Watts (39 of the 49 diffs). Had there not been emerging consensus that AQFK's behavior on Anthony Watts was disruptive already, I wouldn't have brought the RfC issue to AE at all. It's your prerogative to decide how you participate here, but I'm unclear why you'd hold those choices against me.
Looking back, your complaints appear to be: 1) I followed an editing guideline you think should be deprecated, but is not 2) I discussed a violation of our behavioral guidelines, and 3) I've referenced events on an article you haven't edited. I'm sorry these things bother you, but given they do, you're right that we are unlikely to find common ground. With that in mind, I'll leave you be. I guess I'll see you around at the article... Enjoy your night.   — Jess· Δ 03:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a long response but decided to scap scrap it. I'll make just one small point. You claim your main complaint (AE) is about an article not identified by name in the complaint. I bet that's a first in AE history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Muwahidun[edit]

Thank you for deleting Muwahidun. There are actually several more redirects just like that one. Please check out Special:Contributions/Interned gghyyt1 if you have a chance. I would have tagged the rest for G5 but there are a lot! Thanks again, Tavix | Talk  20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: |I think I got most, hopefully all, of them. Thanks for identifying them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think there might be a couple more accounts. I found Special:Contributions/Ghyyrirt that have some junk redirects to Dubai, for example... Tavix | Talk  20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Got 'em--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you ready for the entire list? Instead of giving you a bunch of notifications, I just compiled everything. Let me know if you don't want to go through it all and I'll just do some tagging (at least I have it somewhere). I really appreciate your help. Tavix | Talk  22:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Kuwii hinugu yiri - a few redirects, a couple categories
Special:Contributions/23 year old bored guy - 13 redirects
Special:Contributions/Scratched those bonduns - few redirects, few categories
Special:Contributions/Run hewdgf - four redirects
Special:Contributions/Needwaternpepperpls - 8 redirects + Sunando Sen
Special:Contributions/I'm feeling slightly mellow - 15ish? redirects
Special:Contributions/Pulled u policc - 2 redirects
Special:Contributions/Landedon myshowdr - 4 redirects
Special:Contributions/Northsouthblock - 7 redirects
Special:Contributions/Letitbefelt - 3 redirects
Special:Contributions/Buggeybagge_look-a-like - 7ish redirects, 1 category, 1 article
Special:Contributions/Hhplactube - few redirects, few categories

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My father in law passed away a few minutes ago (he lives with us), so not at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm so sorry to hear that. Please don't worry about this, you have other things to take care of. Real life comes first. Tavix | Talk  22:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg
Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

  • Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
  • Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
  • Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
  • Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Pan American Games[edit]

Hi! Unfortunately, no I won't be there, cause i'm not living in Toronto. Wish you the best! Regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on sandbox[edit]

I've been looking at the WUWT talk page, where you seem to contribute quite a bit. I have a draft of something that may or may not be relevant in my sandbox. I'm a bit unclear on the Not a Forum guideline, so I was wondering if you would be so kind as to take a look. I'd like to avoid polluting the talk page with stuff that doesn't belong.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talkcontribs) 23:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm mulling over how best to respond. However, I am hiking a segment of the Appalachian Trail tomorrow, so may not be online. Don't read my tardiness in responding as lack of interest.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No rush, happy hiking, my sister did a bunch of it like 20 years backMissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I commented here--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Saw it, thanks, the "officially discouraged" part is what I needed to know. I found a place where it is, or ought to be, on topic, thanks.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

...[edit]

Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Collegiate sports (USA)... GWFrog (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Signed up --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lochbroom FM[edit]

Hi, I see you were involved when the Loch Broom FM article was deleted in December 2010. I have written a new article under Lochbroom FM which appears to be the correct spelling of the current organisation. I hadn't seen the old article but I guess if it was deleted there wouldn't be any details worthy of adding to the new article? I was thinking that it would be appropriate to use the Loch Broom FM page as a redirect to the new article. Please let me know if you have any feedback or concerns. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: I sent you a copy of the original article by email, as you can see there wasn't much. I agree with your redirect comment, so I made it into a redirect.

Deleted Big Noble page[edit]

Hi. You apparently deleted draft of a page for Big Noble. I was about to start drafting one myself but wanted to see the deleted one first to see if it has the same content. Thanks.Tampico1 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Heads up that this is the probable sockpuppet of a user uninterested in having their edits retained, so don't waste too much time digging anything up here. --McGeddon (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's hold off a couple days to see how the investigation shapes up; if it turns out to be a false positive, I'll be happy to email you contents (if there weren't problems such as copyright). Please let me know how it turns out, I won't be monitoring it regularly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Grossly offensive[edit]

I wouldn't have seen this, had it not come up on a drama board, which linked to Eric Corbett's comment

Let me be clear. I am well-aware that we have a problems with the way some editors treat other editors. We need to work on how to make this a more productive editing environment. I am not unaware that women make up a minority of participants, and I am in favor of learning why, and what to do about it. We know some of the answers, but not all. I have worked on compiling relevant resources related to the gender gap.

I am in favor of workshops which address problems and propose solutions. However, I think those workshops should be characterized as "teaching editors simple, everyday ways to show respect for all editors in their communities". I don't even mind that there may be a subtext that actions demeaning women are more common, and need more attention, than the reverse. But I think the bald statement "teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women" is blatanly sexist, pejorative, supportive of false sterotypes and ought to be stamped out, not funded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Williams (basketball)[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,

I wouldn't mind allowing your article to take the place of mine. Your article has more information and is preferred. I'll integrate the section covering college aspects into your section. Robert4565 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)