User talk:Sphilbrick

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

Request edits[edit]

Was wondering if I could ask you to review a few if you have time.[1][2][3][4]. Some of these are 1-2 months old and/or are relatively simple. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 02:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting timing. Just yesterday, I looked at the backlog and felt guilty for not having contributed in some time. I'll see if I can do some.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! If you won't have time, just lemme know and I'll keep scrounging for someone. It looks like the Request Edit queue is more than six months backlogged. Hopefully one of these days we'll be able to opt into pending changes for this instead - would be easier for everyone. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I looked at one, and it was decidedly non-trivial. I probably should try some of the others. Maybe tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, how time flies. I'm leaving town for a couple days and have to concentrate on getting ready for the trip so it doesn't happen right away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Yah, you must have looked at that politician's article first. Have fun on your trip. Those Request Edits have been waiting for months. Another few days certainly won't hurt them. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This would be a very small and simple one if you have a minute to take a look. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! assessment categories.[edit]

May I ask that you restore these categories? These were emptied without any discussion by Magicperson6969, who went through and mass deleted all the {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!}} tags from the talk pages. WP:ANIME is trying to sort things out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! work group articles and further categorisation and I have restored the deleted tags. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fully following but will be happy to help. Two questions:
  1. Can you be specific about which categories you mean? Do you mean the 11 categories on Template:WikiProject_Yu-Gi-Oh!?
  2. What is the rationale behind restoration as opposed to re-creation? Is a really any value to the history of the category?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Yes the assessment categories that Magicperson6969 wrongly and without consensus emptied.
  2. Does preserving attribution of previous contributors also apply to categories as well as article and template space? —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current women's CBB standings[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/US College Division 1#Conference current year standings templates done! — Wyliepedia 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Thanks, great work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Form vs from[edit]

Unfortunately I often type "form" instead of "from" - I am certainly not the only person to do this, though I do it more than most I expect. Since I do a lot of work on pseudonyms I have created a number of template redirects to avoid many of the redirects I save from needing a second edit (or being uncategorised redirects).

Today three of them were nominated for speedy deletion, after being orphaned. I do not object to them being orphaned, but deleting them makes my life more difficult. I would be grateful if you could undelete these:

Many thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC).

I, too, have a bad habit of misspelling the word, which is complicated because spell check won't pick it up. I haven't figured out why such a redirect would be useful, but if you say it is, I'll accept that. You might consider adding an explanation to the page or the talk page, in case it gets noticed again and someone is tempted to nominate it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The second doesn't seem to exist, even as a deleted file. Dare I ask if you misspelled it? --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I had just left the "Template:" in - now removed. Note that if you don't remove the speedy tag, the deletion machine that is Mr. Haworth will delete them again before you can say "La Giaconda".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
I put a note on, but to be serious I doubt that anyone else would speedy nom, especially not orphan and nom, most people know better.
I simply re-created the others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC).
Oops, sorry, a bad habit I still need to work on.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Maria Taylor Hyatt[edit]

Maria Taylor is her maiden name. She played volleyball while at Georgia. Shortly after graduating from Georgia she married Daniel Hyatt, and as you know the woman takes upon herself the husband's last name. Therefore she is Maria Taylor Hyatt. I have found no evidence of a divorce, but if she has gotten divorced and gone back to her maiden name, then the solo usage of Maria Taylor would be correct. Without evidence showing that she has gotten divorced, then we can only assume her using the name of just Maria Taylor is similar to those who have gotten married and wait until the end of the season to make the switch (Samantha Ponder comes to mind as one who waited until football was over before changing her last name to Ponder). Bigddan11 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the source of where I got the info that she married Daniel Hyatt, he posted it on Listal, along with pictures of Maria Taylor Hyatt at ESPN and away from ESPN. You can view it at this Listal page. Bigddan11 (talk) 05:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. As you know, it has been a longtime tradition for a married woman to take her husband's name, but this is not a requirement and more recently, any married women do not. In addition, some women especially those in the public eye, they choose to take their husbands name for legal purposes but maintain their original name for professional purposes. I will communicate with the parties to learn more about the situation. I had never heard of Listal; do you know if that qualifies as a reliable source?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To answer you, yes, I have heard of Listal. Do I think it qualifies as a reliable source? Normally no. It is used mostly as a site for people to compile lists for polls or to remain anonymous. In this case where he has taken pictures of her that aren't available elsewhere and posted them, then yes, I consider it to be a reliable source. However I choose to respect the privacy of the individuals, which is why I don't have it linked. Now the entire Maria Taylor (analyst) article needs to be rewritten. When it was changed by the "publicists", they basically copied and pasted everything from the ESPN Media and Front Row profiles. That is clearly a copyright violation. Furthermore a persons page profile on Wiki has to be presented a specific way. The way it has been altered does NOT actually meet that standard. Bigddan11 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleted a page I was hoping to update[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,

I have been asked by an underground comix artist named Glenn Head to update a page he started working on six months ago, and I see it's been deleted. Is there a way I could get it back so I could add some references and get it up to snuff? I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm doing anything in the wrong way - I'd appreciate a chance to learn and make it right. Thanks! Alexgadd (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexgadd:A good start would be to tell me the name of the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Philbrick:Sorry - it's Draft: Glenn Head (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Alexgadd: I restored it. Please note it needs a lot of work including some references. Good luck.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Philbrick:Thank you!Alexgadd (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Philbrick:Hi - could you take another look at the page - I am hoping I did everything correctly to have it promoted to production. Thank you.Alexgadd (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Alexgadd: Much improved. I don't know enough about the industry to know whether those awards a significant enough to confer notability, so I'll pointedly avoid commenting on whether this person meets the notability hurdle. I'm happy that you added some references, I see that they are bare URLs which are barely acceptable. Please take a look at WP:REFB which will help you format them in the desired style. It's a bit of a pain to learn how to do references correctly but once you get the hang of it they become relatively easy. (No need to ping when you post on my page; I automatically get a notice; it is helpful to ping when you post on a page the person may not be watching.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help. I have updated the reference links per the guidelines. The awards are in fact the two highest the comic book industry bestows. The Eisner awards are the "Oscars" of comic book industry, and the Harvey are almost as big (the Golden Globes in that analogy). What is the next step to getting this published?Alexgadd (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear about the status of the awards that will help. I'm not the best person to ask about the next step. I think you can ask for review, by adding a template but I don't recall what it is. Asking at Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good next step. Sorry I can't look into it but I'm getting ready to go out of town in a few minutes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page archives[edit]

Hi. You deleted some Talk page archives for Northern line, citing WP:CSD G8. Though these talk pages had no directly corresponding main space pages, they were at the correct location for Talk page archives, as explained at Help:Archiving a talk page#Subpage archive method, and G8 explicitly excludes Talk page archives from its scope. Please restore them! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, these pages had been at locations in main article space. I had moved them to their appropriate locations in the Talk namespace, and I was looking only to have the redirects removed! So I realize this may have been a matter of you automatically deleting Talk pages along with the corresponding article space pages, and just not noticing the context within which the Talk content had been put there. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User Wikidea[edit]

Please go over to his talk page (The one I pinged you to or He works on law articles and templates. Repeated he violates clear WP policies of WP:Seealso,WP:Navbox, to name a few. I cleaned up his work, he is reverting all of it. I told him if he doesn't like the policy or guideline, to take it to the talk page of that guideline or policy. Hasn't done it. Consensus is no See also redlinks and no external links in templates. I can give you examples of his work, or just look at his edits this afternoon (December 5th) to see what I mean....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The above user is not acquainted with the way the law pages and templates are working. We made those specifically so that they could have links: it's a different situation to other templates. Generally also, this above user is removing a lot of important information that functions as referencing, and this serves no purpose. Wikidea 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please state where there is a consensus for your view regarding see also and navbox. BTW I'm not new to WikiProject Law. Been a member since 2012[5]. The WikiProject Law userbox has been on my User page that long. Your referencing leaves much to be desired. I've seen where you've referenced[6] to Wikipedia articles and that violates WP:CIRCULAR which is a policy that states 'Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources.' But you're doing that too. I'm going to wait till SP replies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't say you aren't finding something useful, and I don't think you intend to hinder development. But Wikipedia:Red link is very important on the policy of red links. It's just really counterproductive what you've done: I'm astonished. Need to see the purpose of the rules, not just literal interpretation (as I've said on my talk page). Wikidea 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to look into this, but if you look at my contributions, you'll see I only have a handful of edits in the last week - it has been very busy. The earliest I can even read your post is tomorrow afternoon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You can see what's being done on EU law, US corporate law, English contract law and pages like it - the red links are just the tiniest part of a very large project with literally thousands of case pages being created, and dozens or hundreds of templates: William has simply been mistaken about this red link issue in this case, though I'm sure he's been doing very important work (as I've said) clearing away the "dead wood" in other areas: it's just different in this case for law topics. I'm sorry you're embroiled and busy outside Wikipedia. Wikidea 11:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, this morning he removed the deletion notices on two templates of his I nominated for deletion. Here[7] and here[8]. I will give you examples of his ignoring WP:Circular, WP:Seealso, WP:Navbox, and WP:Categorization later today. This morning I have an appointment at 10 Florida time and won't be home till early afternoon earliest....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is one example of See also[9], One of [[WP:Navbox][10] which says no EL in templates, and one of WP:Circular[11] where he restored an instance of using wikipedia as a source for his article. These are quick examples and I can give lots more. Now I am going.13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The deletion templates can stay if William is really so adamant - but it's just a matter of time before other people see sense through this. On the points directly above, the text he wanted to delete was part of the judgment (in Lubbe)! I'm sorry, but this is just bizarre, and William is clearly making no attempt at all to understand any subject matter he is deleting. For the Macmillan page, again Wikipedia:Red link. Completely mistaken. Wikidea 13:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Red link, which you keep pointing to, says- Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as
Main article: Sphilbrick
or Error: no page names specified (help)., since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.
SP, two things for you to note- Wikidea in his edit summaries says the information is important but if so where is the verifiability per WP:V? In almost every case there was none in the see also deletions I made. Second, so far as the external links in templates, there was a recent discussion on just that here[12], that seems to uphold no external links in templates. They are meant for navigation between WP articles.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
I've opened a discussion on here - which you're welcome to contribute to. Wikidea 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance yet, and I have a meeting this evening, so I'll try in the morning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, SP. When you have time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As I promised more examples of reversions by Wikidea in violation of wikipedia policies.

WP:Circular- here[13] and here[14]. Note how the articles refers to another wikipedia article with the word 'See' in the IC and the IC being a link to another WP article.

Note the 2nd of those edit summaries could be a violation of WP:CIVIL by hinting I would be a vandal for deleting something that is clearly upholding a wikipedia policy. To quote- "I'm afraid this user seriously misunderstands law, and I really hope this stops - or it'll be vandalism"

Note- Those were the only edits I did to correct Circular in Wikidea's articles but there are other cases of it that I didn't get around to. He has also created over a half dozen articles without any references. A wikipedia editor other than me brought it to his attention over two years ago in a talk page post here[15]. All but one of which is still unreferenced.

More cases-

WP:Seealso- here[16], here[17], and here[18] See also says no redlinks in those redlinks in those sections. Obviously what is there to see also if no article exists.

WP:Navbox- here[19], here[20], here[21], Navbox also says no external links in templates. This matter was discussed not too long ago either at the related talk page.

Please don't forget he removed[22] the deletion tags off[23] two templates I nominated for deletion and voted twice[24] in both[25] TFDs. All in violation of WP policies in regards to deletion discussions.

I await what you think about all this. Honestly, I think Wikidea's behavior, which may or may not be considered a case of WP:OWN, merits a ANI discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

General response[edit]

My apologies for the delay, I'm finally getting back to look at this. I see quite a bit of text above and a number of issues. Let me start with some general thoughts on red links. As a general introduction, I'll observe that our highly decentralized approach to building an encyclopedia has many pluses but some minuses. The ability of just about any editor to make changes to guidelines and policies is simultaneously a positive and negative. The positives may be obvious, but a negative is that, without a central editorial board, we can find ourselves saying the opposite a close to the opposite thing in two different places. Another general comment is that this place has evolved a lot over the last 15 years. Policies and procedures which made perfect sense in the first few years of the development may be outdated now, and sometimes it takes time for the text of policies to catch up with the change in practice.

With that as background, I think the practices of red links have changed over time for the better. In the early days of the encyclopedia liberal use of red links made a lot of sense. The example I like to give is that at some time there may have been an editor working on an article about the solar system before the article about Jupiter had been written. It was perfectly appropriate to red link "Jupiter" with the rationale that we certainly should have an article about the planet, it should be started soon, and many many readers have the capability of starting that article. The red link served as a way to invite a reader to start the article.

In contrast, the situation today is a little different. While we are far from our goal of a summarization of human knowledge, a lot of low hanging fruit has been started. While only a tiny handful of articles have reached a point where they might be considered adequate as is, there are fewer articles for which any reasonable person would say any decent encyclopedia must have an article about the subject. For example, I know nothing about the "Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission" case, and it may well deserve to have an article, but I don't think the average reader will be stunned to find that such an article has not been started. In addition, while a significant proportion of readers encountering a red link such as "Jupiter" have the expertise to at least start an article, only a tiny proportion of readers would be both able and interested in writing an article about some legal case.

The phrase "Good red links help Wikipedia" was added to the guideline in 2007, a day closer to the beginning of the encyclopedia than to the present. I don't disagree with the phrase but I think the community view of what constitutes a good red link has transformed over time. Note that WP:RED says " a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic ..." And the word is "should" not "could". I think a red link should generate the reaction "I can't believe we don't yet have an article about this" not "this subject has enough written about it in reliable sources to merit an article".

Another important transformation in the processes of Wikipedia is a growth of wiki projects. Early on, when there were no wiki projects, a red link was the best way of identifying a subject that deserved expansion. As we evolved, and knocked off the low hanging fruit, we created wiki projects for editors with special abilities and interest to discuss various subjects including needed articles. Note that the wiki project the law is barely 2 years older than the addition of that phrase to the guideline. I think a wiki project is a great place for like-minded editors to get together and make list of subjects deserving articles. But I think that's a better approach than including red links in articles and templates. The very nature of navigational templates means that there may be some cases where most items have articles but a few are missing. A few red links and a template may be acceptable, but a template that is mostly red links probably ought not to exist, and should be a sub topic within a wiki project. Once a substantial number of the articles have been created navigational template make sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

Doing my best to ignore William's nonsense above, this sounds fair. But then, people just need to delete - at most - not the reference, but the red link - those two brackets "" "" but not what's inside them! There's no case for deleting whatever reference there is, you just de-link it. That's the problem. Wikidea 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am thoroughly sick and tired of your behavior towards me. Your use of misconceived, vandalism, lack of understanding, and more, and just above William's nonsense in response to edits or things I've written. You are making this personal. SP, why is this constant unending behavior not all a violation of civil and a blockable offense?

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Again my apologies for not addressing the sooner. @Wikidea:@WilliamJE: I would like both of you to start with the assumption that you've linked a lot of information on my talk page and I haven't had time to read it all. I did see some comments on red links, which prompted me to write the general response.

If there's name-calling by either side I want it to stop.

I don't see either editor attempting to make the Wikipedia worse, I see two diligent hard-working editors both interested in improving the encyclopedia, but having different views on how certain specific things should be handled.

Let's start with a specific subject and discuss it. Would you rather talk about circular, or templates with redlinks or something else?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

SP, I want to hear you views on circular and navbox aka external links in templates (Note I never removed any redlinks in the concerned templates unless it was immediately preceded by 'See' as in see this because obviously there is nothing to see) that I addressed. I do see your reply concerning Seealso. Thank you for taking the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll comment soon on circular. When you say "navbox aka external links" do you mean, for example, Template:Clist fair terms ? --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did. A couple of quick points. Templates are meant to 'facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia'. WP:NAVBOX makes clear that 'external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion)." There was a talk page discussion on EL in navigation templates here[26] not too long ago....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked for comment on this on the Wikiproject law talk page here. What William's suggesting is simply mistaken - we have templates specifically made to have external links, and creating drop down box templates for cases and the link to primary sources. Thousands of students and lawyers use this. I just don't get why anyone would want to frustrate that - I do apologise, William for making you upset, but it wasn't like I didn't try to explain from the start - like here. Wikidea 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks in See also[edit]

@Wikidea: I first want to emphasize that while William pinged me for help in this dispute, either William or I can point you to situations where I have disagreed with William, sometimes strongly, so he is not addressing me because he thinks I will automatically take his side.

I looked at this edit more or less at random. I see the addition of a red link to a see also section. Wikidea, If I read your edit summary correctly, where you said " this is important information. I'm astonished that this user has spent three days deleting important information", I don't understand your position. Providing a link to an article it doesn't exist hardly qualifies as important information. It is possible that the case identified in the link is a very important case and maybe there will be an article someday, maybe even soon. But until it exists, it doesn't add much to the article. That's an argument on general principles. I believe our guideline strongly discourages red links in a see also section, so you would need an extraordinary argument to explain why that guideline ought to be ignored. Perhaps you are arguing that this specific case is very important to this article. If that's the case, I don't dispute it but it doesn't yet exist. If you have plans to write that article go ahead and write it and add it when it is done. If you do not have plans to write the article but think it ought to be done, as my general response about suggests, the best course of action is to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law and propose it as an article worth developing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so there it's an important reference that relates to the case page (e.g. the Corbin book). William's thinking that "if it's got a red link, it should be deleted". So three points, either:
(1) create the page, don't delete the link - and leave it for other editors, or at the very least, and if you absolutely must
(2) take away the brackets, so that it doesn't link, but leave the reference.
(3) if you really, really object, move it to the references section.
So for another example, here William deletes two perfectly good references embedded in the text - there's simply no thought going into this, but mechanical application of an apparent rule (which is a general policy, not made for the law pages). I was happening to actually work on creating those very pages myself - one I did the other day; I would've had time to have done the other if I hadn't been distracted by..,. Wikidea 00:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't yet had a chance to look at your contributions, but I do see you have substantial contributions and have been around for a long time. However, I'm puzzled by this comment. It doesn't matter whether the pages are created or not, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a reference. When you say it is "a general policy not made for the law pages" you imply that general policies can be trumped by local rules. That is not the case. There are many cases where wiki projects, for example, set up standards for notability that are very specific to the subject matter, but the intent is to provide specific advice not to override general policies. If you were a new editor I would think you simply misunderstood how things work, but you been around for quite a while, so can you explain what you mean on the chance and misunderstood it.
Regarding your list of three points: if a red link occurs in regular text, there are times the right thing to do is simply remove the bracket so it is no longer a red link. But that doesn't apply to references. A reference must be an external reliable source. If it is an internal link to Wikipedia it is not a reliable source. (That might be some rare edge cases in articles about Wikipedia itself, but that doesn't apply to law cases.)
In the case of Corbin, it appears you may want to use a recognized book as a reference but if so it ought to be properly constructed as a reference not as a link to an article about the book. This is editing 101. I don't expect a brand-new editor to know all this but I'm struggling to understand how someone with your experience doesn't know this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikidea: One of the reasons I created subsections was so that we could keep similar issues together. I created a subsection for "Redlinks in See also", but while your response starts with that edit, you switch over to a different edit, with a different issues. Unfortunately, I responded to both items, so I am also guilty of conflating issues. I may look into creating a separate page so we can have some organization.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If the Corbin book is a reference for the article, it belongs in the reference section, not in the See also section because it is not a section for references but links to wikipedia articles on related/similar topics. As a see also, it was a redlink partly.
BTW, listing the Corbin book in the references section or a further reading section is fine with me. I've used non internet sources as references. Here[27] and here[28] are just two examples....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, the way legal references work is different to what you've suggested above. In the reference example on the EU page, it's not using Wikipedia as a reference, it's the case - and then the case citation afterwards - which is the reference. And, I didn't say that local rules "trump" general policy. I'm saying general policy allows for this; and not maybe and contestably, but definitely and clearly. Wikidea 10:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps everything that I'm saying can be summed up in this. Instead, enjoy a nice warm drink in this cold weather! Wikidea 12:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI, that You_tube wouldn't play (not in this country)
I'm not in agreement on the use of references. I do accept that you are making good faith efforts, but I want to make sure policies are followed (or modified if there is something better). I'm checkign with one of our legal experts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, that was a good move by you to see what NewYorkBrad's view is....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, where do we stand on this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I had hoped that NYB would either way in or suggest someone to contact. While I think your observations are valid, I think it is worth getting input from someone with a legal background. I just provided a gentle prod to NYB, and I will separately follow up with someone else who might be able to weigh in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I do anything at all? Like removing the See also redlinks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I am frustrated that my attempts to get other opinions on the subject haven't worked out the way I had hoped. I think your observations are on point. I'm trying to square the fairly clear guidelines and policies, coupled with established paradigms, against the obvious usage by law articles with little pushback. I'm going to try again, but my initial reaction is that of the three things you've observed, use of Wikipedia articles in references, use of external links in templates, and red links in see also, the last is the clearest. While there have been some limited attempts to justify external links in templates, I don't recall seeing anyone attempt to justify red links in see also. I urge you to go slowly, but I support your removal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, not using wikipedia as a reference aka WP:CIRCULAR isn't a guideline, but one of Wikipedia's core policies WP:V. Take for instance this revert[29] done by Wikidea. They restored three references that were all to wikipedia articles. WP:Circular, which is a subchapter of WP:V, says clearly that is something not to do. Furthermore, one of those references that was restored, was to an article- The Moorcock that itself is unreferenced....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did say "guidelines and policies" --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, SP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is really not a big deal. The odd thing is when I started to write my comment I thought about whether to just say guidelines or guidelines and policies and when I saw your response I thought I had only mentioned guidelines. Some I am happy that I got it right. Now let's hope that some editors can get it right. I tracked down another lawyer and asked for review but I'm not overly encouraged by the initial response. You may have noticed I made an edit to one of the articles. My preference would be to get some agreement from some regular editors that there are no valid reasons supporting exceptions to policies or guidelines, but if we can't get people to weigh in, we may have to make some edits and then address it through dispute resolution if there is a dispute. I will repeat again I urge you to move slowly. My experiences that editors, even when following the rules, get in trouble if they attempt to apply them too quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for the invitation to the lively discussion. The main issue that both side seem to have is the amount of red links. As I understand it, the issue is more of style. I suggest to not have too many red links in a law article because it adds questions in the minds of lay readers. A cleaner copy of the article is better. Then, for the more professional reader, the external links should not be in the body but in a see also or external links section, such as the text of the case reported at Cornell University. I am more focused on readability for the lay reader than a professional. But, once again , this is a style issue.Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite hdl[edit]

Thanks for deleting {{cite hdl}}. Could you delete all the subpages too please AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

See response above--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: Sorry about the delay, I have been very busy. I found and deleted Template:Cite hdl/doc. I didn't see any others did I miss some?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
here's a search for all of them AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you also do all the numbered subpages of {{cite pmid}} Almost all of these: AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Working on them, there are quite a few.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikidea's community sanction[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick, I became aware of the redlink issues in EU law articles by seeing your post at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Need some help involving law articles. You may not be aware that User:Wikidea is still under an editing restriction, per User:Wikidea/Community sanction: "Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages." If you think he should be warned by an administrator under this restriction, let me know. In my opinion, Wikidea can avoid being blocked or restricted from editing if he will make an appropriate promise about future edits. For example, he can agree to make no edits which add redlinks to pages about EU law without first getting consensus on a talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: There are several issues involving Wikidea's work here at WP. Redlinks isn't the biggest of them. What I see them as-
1- His using wikipedia as a source in the articles in violation of WP:Circular.
2 That some of his articles he is creating are totally unsourced. I know 2 off the top of my head, but the total is at least in the 6-10 range.
Everything said, I don't want to see Wikidea sanctioned. Just that he conform the article he does to the guidelines and policies at WP. Much of which I raised above.
SP, how does this this, if in anyone, change the status of the issues I raised. External links in templates, WP:Circular, and seealso. Can I go to work on these problems or are you still wishing me to go slow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:Thanks for the information Ed. I did not know about the editing restriction, that's helpful to know. I haven't yet determined that the editor is disruptive, but quite a few edits do not conform to what I believe are acceptable editing guidelines. I am trying, unsuccessfully, to determine whether some consensus of editors agreed that these violations of guidelines constitute acceptable exceptions.
To William, I still urge you to move slowly but that doesn't mean doing nothing. The following is I believe an unwritten but accepted paradigm: if you see something you think violates a guideline incorrect it most of the time nothing will happen, on occasion someone will disagree you talk it out and reach a consensus. However, if you see a violation of an editing guideline that involves hundreds or thousands of edits and undertake to revert them all, someone will object. I think it would be wise to start with one of the clearest situations, red links in see also sections, remove a few with a clear edit summary and wait to see if anyone responds. If no one comes along with a link to a discussion which alleges it is an acceptable exception, we can move on.
I think the red links in see also are the clearest for the following reason: they invite the reader to click on a link that takes you nowhere. This is arguably not just useless but worse. A proponent might argue it suggest a future article, but I don't view that is an acceptable reason for violating the guideline. I think the templates with external links are a bigger challenge. Someone actually created the template they have been used in many articles without apparent objection so I am hoping we get more input on why these were created and whether they should remain. In contrast to a red link, and external link and a template actually provides the reader with some useful information. We have to weigh the value of the additional information against the breaking of the paradigm that readers are not lead outside Wikipedia without warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
From the date that was 6 years ago, unrelated, and I'm amazed - I'd completely forgotten about that particular episode. Let me just state again (on the red link) issue, that it's important because it allows the encyclopedia to be expanded: at the very least, don't delete references, just move them from the see also section. I know deleting is easy, but at the very least move not delete. Wikidea 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, can I add, with reference to the point you raise about EU law being a "disaster" on Newyorkbrad's page, of course it is - not usable in the sections you mention, but it's getting there. Literally, you'll see in a completely different page in 3 and a half months if you can just please have some patience and faith (as I suggested on Talk:European Union law). If you want to email me, then perhaps I can give you some non-anonymous assurance. Wikidea 17:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Sp, Wikidea is reverting my removals of redlinks (or nonlinks) in see also sections. See here[30] and here[31]. As you stated above, you didn't see a problem with the removals. He is also making personal attacks in his edit summaries as seen here[32].

To me he is violating the sanctions by being disruptive....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not true at all. Look at the edits: I've simply taken away the link. As I (patiently, courteously, in good faith and trying to find a compromise) stress for the third time, don't remove the references - if you have to just remove the link which makes it red. You can shift it to the References section. Another example, which I've post on at Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. And here is an excellent example of why you shouldn't remove them at all. It's completely unfair to bully and threaten me as a mechanism in this debate with that 6 year old episode. You've made this completely personalised under the heading above. Perhaps if you're fair minded we can actually discuss it on Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. I'm talking to three non-lawyers now - I really think it'd be a good idea to leave it to people who are informed to discuss. But I'm spending an unbelievable amount of energy on this, and it stops from productive editing. Wikidea 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all. How about instead of a external link reference create an inline citation with an active link to the case on a third party open website like Corrnel University or WikiSource? That way it looks cleaner and a lay reader or professional can go to the source for more information. This way we can have it both ways to improve readability and have a link to the document.
The back and forth about adding and removing red links is a minor issue of style (IMO) and not by itself disruptive. Also, I am very very gently reminding all to not use terms like "act like a grownup" in the edit summary because that is disruptive. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Both editors to want to improve law articles and I compliment them on that because it is a needed topic. But, let us all find common ground of no red links and an inline cite. That is my modest proposal. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I just changed the above example of the external ref link to an inlince cite for the article of Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. for ref number 9. Lexis/Nexus uses green, yellow, red color coding for the history of the cases and I do not want a professional, who is not very fimilar with a red link and who sees a red link to follow that same color coding. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cite pmid template deleted while it still has 40,000 subpages?[edit]

I noticed that you have deleted {{Cite pmid}} while it still has 40,000 subpages. I figured that all of the subpages and their documentation would need to be substed and then deleted before the main template could be deleted. The documentation, for example, in {{Cite pmid/11105451}}, refers to {{Cite pmid}}, which no longer exists. Maybe I'm missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: My understanding is that the template has been deprecated. I deleted it based on that rationale, and then learned that there were a number of sub pages that need to be deleted. I've actually been working on deleting them but I've been doing it by hand. I realized today that there are quite a few, I thought it was on the order of 10,000 not 40,000, but in either case I'm looking into a better way to delete them. Arguably the sub pages should've been deleted before the main page but I think this will get handled soon. Let me know if there's a good reason to restore the main template and wait to delete it until after the sub pages are gone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As long as you are aware of the subtemplates and working on deleting them, I'm OK with that. I do wonder whether an RfC to deprecate can be viewed as consensus to delete, since those appear to me to be two different things, but I'm not always clear on WP process.
You might consider submitting a bot request to delete all instances of {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} that have no transclusions, incoming redirects, or incoming links. The bot will have to make at least two passes through all of the subpages, since many instances of one have an incoming redirect from another (i.e. you have to delete the redirect first, then the target of the redirect will have no incoming links, so you can delete the target on the second pass). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I asked a question here, but I'll ask you, do you know if
Category:Cite pmid templates
is only populated with items that should be deleted? If so, I can do that as a batch deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't think there is anything preventing the category from being added manually by some poor misbegotten soul. In any event, you would still have to check for transclusions, incoming redirects, or incoming links. Someone with some sort of database dump skills may be able to help you. Maybe ask on VPT? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: FYI Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Batch_deletion --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing archives links[edit]

It seems you + others inadvertently screwed up the archive situation on Talk:Jesus by deleting Talk:Jesus/archivebox - see the discussion at and fix, so the topical archives are not hidden anymore. --Elvey(tc) 00:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I restored it. I hope someone can sort out what needs to be done; it isn't clear to me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


What do you mean by "Request for deletion may not be valid" [33]? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sphilbrick#Missing_archives_links Section above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Saw it, and I still don't understand. That page is not used anywhere. Why can't it be deleted? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Please ask @Elvey:.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The content of the archive box has been added to the article itself, so actually the template isn't needed after all. --Elvey(tc) 18:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Can you add the CSD template; that would make it easier to delete?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Can't find a CSD that applies. (T3 seems closest). XfD? Or IAR and apply T3?--Elvey(tc) 18:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the page. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank-you for the very nice message.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .[edit]

Merry Christmas, Sphilbrick, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

CMR Xmas greeting.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed


Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

Restore Gnopaste[edit]

The page Gnopaste was an orphan since September 2008. You deleted this page on November 7, 2015. Please restore this page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I'm very open to reasons for restoration, but you provided none. Noting that it is a long time orphan is an argument against restoration. What are the arguments in favor of keeping it? I see an article with no significant claims and not a single reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore Ring My Droid page deleted on Jan 5, 2016[edit]


I noticed you deleted the page I created about Ring My Droid yesterday. I have posted this reply on the talk page of the article in question too. It seems that the article I wrote was considered as an advertising article, but, it was, however, intended to be an article about an application being used by over 85,000+ people in various countries intended to help users get more info about the nature and usage of the application. This page is about an application that helps its users locate their smartphones. The application is being used by over 85000+ users in various countries including the US, UK, India, Egypt, UAE and various other European and middle eastern countries. Information about this application which is the subject of this article has been published in mainstream media outlets including 'Ahram Online' in Egypt, and a link to the article was cited as reference in addition to other links posted for reference and citation. This article was intended to help the users (which is a community of 85,000+ people in various countries) to get more information about the app in general and the usage of the app. However, in case the language of the article seemed to be 'promotional' in nature, it could be changed or modified as required. The application which is the subject of this article is also an Open-Source application was intended to be added the List of Free and Open Source Android Applications on Wikipedia so it can be referenced and used by the open source community to help people build more applications based on security concept used in this application. --Rbxi.delhi (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is now at User:Rbxi.delhi/Ring_My_Droid Wikipedia is not WikiHow. It needs a lot of work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Korean Eyes Korean eyes[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Korean Eyes Korean eyes. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wikibreaking (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wikibreaking: You had the wrong title, which made it initially difficult for me to locate the article. I've corrected it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I am saying 2 separate things here. 1. That previously deleted article on the myths was wrongfully deleted. 2. Irrelevant of that previously deleted article, whether this content was *also* mentioned in that previously deleted article or not, it should be irrelevant. For example, if an article on US presidency got deleted while including the mention of Obama, then should an article on Obama himself be also deleted just because it was mentioned in that deleted article? I see no logic in this. So, I am trying to set straight how this article (specifically on Korean eyes) is legitimate & shouldn't be deleted. Then, I am going to resubmit petition on the previously deleted article (I am separating that article into 2) because it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll repeat that I hold no opinion on the original deletion. I see both are being debated at the correct forum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the original deletion was wrongful. False claims were made on notability & the legitimacy of the references. I am asking the decision to be reviewed. Also, The second deletion on Korean eyes (I separated the article into 2 parts & uploaded only the second part referenced to English Google books) was wrongful. It got deleted just because it was mentioned in the first deleted article on the myths of double-eyelids.Wikibreaking (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


Request to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Marley per sources presented therein. North America1000 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read all the links, but I read the first three all of which can be summarized as "Fabian claims to be the son of Bob Marley, but it hasn't been proven". Frankly, if it is proven, so what? Notability isn't inherited. He needs to be notable on his own merits, and a not-yet-verified claim to be related to a notable person doesn't pass my test of notability.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If one is going to provides links, start with strong ones, not garbage ones. If you think one is solid, let me know and I'll look at it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gilles (stock character)[edit]

Hello, and happy New Year!

I come a-begging again. Note 17 in the page named above has been tagged as an error, and I can't figure out either what's wrong or how to fix it. (I went to the help page that the tag directs one to, but I didn't understand the explanation. I left a request for help, which has not been answered, and I also left a request on the Talk page of Gilles (stock character), which also has not been answered.) May I trouble you to take a look and suggest what I must do to correct this? As always, I'm eternally grateful for your help. Beebuk 07:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Beebuk: I fixed it. In this section:
In the salons and private theaters
You reused the "r&r" reference, but forgot to add the closing slash. The software treats this as a new instance of the ref name, rather than a re-use of an existing ref. (Check out the most recent diff to see the edit.)
In a coincidence, I fielded a question emailed to Wikimedia by a new editor struggling with some issue, and used you as an example of a success story.
Thanks for contacting me. Hope all is going well. I see your name on my watchlist; I am so pleased you are continuing to contribute.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks! I just couldn't figure out what was wrong. Yes, after my petulant short absence I'm happy to be back. Still struggling with the Pierrot page, though. It's very very difficult to condense things to an acceptable length. I'll keep bashing at it. I'm blessed to have you as a mentor. All is well. Beebuk 14:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Le Zoute Concert[edit]


You deleted this article G3 blatant hoax. Do you think it's a good idea to add it to the list of hoaxes, as it was here for almost 2 years? Adam9007 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Seems like it may qualify. For some reason, I thought the list was supposed to be things that made it into Reliable Sources, but maybe I'm dreaming, because I don't see that mentioned. Go for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I'm not sure if I can as I'm not an admin, unless that only applies to archiving? Adam9007 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Many non-admins have edited that page. I think the admin note revers to the creation of the archive. The other challenge is whether you know how to describe the article. I'd like to let you do it, as it was your idea, Let me know if you do not want to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:As I cannot remember the exact creation date, I think it's best if you do it. I'm also not particularly good at describing things. Adam9007 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category deletion[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick. You recently deleted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I assume that was a mistake, and I have restored the category and talk page. If I am missing something, let me know. Cheers. --Mojo Hand (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mojo Hand: My mistake. There were a lot of cats to delete, and I must have picked the main one by accident. Thanks for cleaning up after me, I owe you one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's what I figured. No worries - we are allowed to be human.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you just did this again (but already self-reverted) Are you running your deletions manually or with an automation? — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:Manually. I don't know this one happened. I select the items using a Chrome extension which can open multiple tabs, but I cannot see how it could select the parent - it isn't on the page where I right-click and select. I'll keep watching - this time I noticed it, but hit delete too quickly, but, other than the obvious fact that it must have been opened, I cannot see why it was opened. As an aside, how did you see it so quickly? I reverted seconds after the deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, was mostly just checking in to see if maybe you were running some sorta of out of control bot under your admin account, good to hear it was just a normal type of error (these things happen). I saw it because I have that category page on my watchlist. Thanks for continuing with the non-stop CSD cleanups! — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I try to look at every single one, with some rare exceptions. When I see a group of cats for deletion, all of which are empty, all proposed by the same editor, I spot check a couple then go into semi-auto mode (brain, not bot) and delete each one. Somehow, the main cat ended up in a open tab to the right of some I planned to delete. I haven't fgured out how, and I will be watching. (My other exception is SisterTwister is tagging a lot of abandoned user drafts. In some cases, there is a message saying that only the template is in place, and no edits for a year. I checked the first 50 of those on a case by case basis, but I am now convinced SisterTwister knows what they are doing, so when I see that message, I spot check a few, but delete some without looking further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hold on...[edit]

When you change "runner-ups" to "runners-up", I think many of these are a mistake. From what I can gather "runners-up" refers to multiple people at the same event/race, while "runner-ups" means they were the runner-up at multiple contests. Courcelles (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the edit that crossed my watchlist. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Do you have a source to support that? I've searched a dozen or so sites, and haven't once seen that distinction. One site in particular, didn't just state the rule but explained it, noting that "runner" is a noun and nouns take plurals, but modifiers, such as "up" do not.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Other than use in sports magazines, I can't find much of anything hard. And most of them sidestep the issue by using "six runner-up finishes". Which might be what we should be using, really. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "runners-up" is standard English, like "brothers-in-law" and other similar formulations. See the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language's explanation and a similar explanation in May I Quote You on That?: A Guide to Grammar and Usage. These were two of the first four hits when I searched for "usage runners-up brothers-in-law" on Google. The other two of the four top hits made the same recommendation but were not published sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I've been trying to look at some high quality tennis sites, and I noticed a tendency of some to form the plural that way. That might work in some cases (not easy to code in AWB but that's my problem) but not in others. For example, in the article you cited Ai_Sugiyama, I think it would work if the section “Doubles runners-up” read “double runner up”. The section lists the event and year in which the subject earned a runner-up position. However, the section above, “Singles (6 titles, 7 runners-up)” would read awkwardly if “titles” were plural and “runner-up” single, and weird if it were “Singles (6 title, 7 runner-up)”. That might mean a bespoke selection in each article, which would be a pain.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles:I would like to draw your attention to The plural of runner-up--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Water polo talk archives[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I am truly sorry about making the mistake. Thank you for the deletions.☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Loriendrew: Not a big deal. I deleted the entire CSD category the other day :) Thanks for the barn-star.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

OTRS check[edit]

Hi, Sphilbrick. In January, you mentioned that you were in discussion with User:Aatifbandey2009 through OTRS. Was permission ever provided to recreate the copy-paste page for Ghulam Qadir Bandey. Let me know. Thanks. CactusWriter (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: I did not process such a request. My discussions were more along the line of explaining why it wasn't ridiculous to delete some text that was authored by the editor. Having said that, I have transferred my OTRS time from permissions to info, and haven't processed any permissions in a couple months. I just checked, and see no record of any text permissions being granted or even requested by the same email I had conversed with.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for checking. CactusWriter (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Nayantara or Nayanthara[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick. There is a currently-open move discussion at Talk:Nayantara#Requested move 18 January 2016. Please check and see if you want to close this. Also, the talk page and the article are now at different names. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad timing on my part. I did the move, accepting that it was non-controversial, but it was close to the end of my editing window. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be online much in the next 3 days. Anyone reading this has my permission to undo the move if it was wrong, otherwise, I will look at it when I get home (Thursday, I think). --S Philbrick(Talk) 03:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I have some time now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article The Great Whale Society has been DELETED by YOU!!!![edit]

Hello Wikipedia, I am the creator of the Page The Great Whale Society and the fantasy article that talks about whales.

Can I at least have the draft back so I can print it out and keep it for my self please?

thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Whale Society (talkcontribs) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@The Great Whale Society: It was tagged as a blatant hoax, and deleted for that reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a humor magazine. You were given a warning, please look at your talk page: User_talk:The_Great_Whale_Society.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)