User talk:Sphilbrick

Thank you. The Robert Conley fix you did looks great

Many thanks, Sphilbrick, on the cleanup on the Robert Conley page. The page looks great.

Thank you for your input

Thank you very much for your input. I was trying to write an Article about a surgery and I needed a link to different types of bone grafts. Thanks again. Your pal - BennyK95 - Talk 20:12, October 7 2009(UTC)

Please consider signing this proposal

Hi SPhilbrick, a number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and they are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. I've reviewed their proposal and have decided to lend my support and signed my signature. Can you please review their proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

Economics of global warming

Hello,

I obviously disagree with the recent changes you have made to the article economics of global warming, where you have deleted some of my edits. I have responded to your criticisms of my edit on the article's talk page. Since you might not be in agreement with the arguments that I have made, I have put a "dubious" in-line tag after sentence (3):

(3) Population and economic growth are the most significant drivers of food demand.

In view of your complaint that I had not given a more precise citation for sentence (3), I have put in a reference that takes you directly to the html version of the Fisher et al source:

Fisher, B.S.; et al. (2007). ""3.2.1.6 Land-use change and land-use management." In [book chapter]: "Issues related to mitigation in the long term context." In [book]: "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz et al. Eds.]"". Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Retrieved 2010-03-18. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

In my opinion, this link is unnecessary given the reference that I have already provided in the article. But of course, it does no harm adding in the new reference. Enescot (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the link. Obviously, I view it differently. What might be acceptable sourcing for an academic paper is not, IMO, adequate here. When it is reasonably easy to bring someone right to the document, as opposed to a page where one can find it with a little careful digging, I think we owe it to our readers to make it easy.

As to the style, I find the outline style not in keeping with the style of the encyclopedia. My focus the next three weeks will be on basketball, so I won't much time to discuss until April, but at that time, I'll see if I can get other to weigh in on the style. While you may have added some good material and removed some questionable material, my impression is that the overall article has taken a step backward. I'd like to see the best of both, but I don't want to work on improving the article until there's a broader consensus about style. The article gets very little traffic, so I may have to poke a few of the usual suspects to get them to weigh in. I want to be careful to do it without running afoul of canvassing, and I think an RfC is overkill, so I want to wait until I can put together a plan before proceeding.

You obviously have knowledge and interest in the area, so I hope you will join me in improving the article.--SPhilbrickT 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback forum

Thanks for the heads up. Basketball is not my thing, but the shoe will be on the other foot when the World Cup kicks off in the summer (depending on how much coverage it gets on the US networks)! – ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand. While I have not become a soccer fan, my boss still plays and is a serious fan. He is worried how he will get his work done once world cup starts. The place where I sit when I am in my office is in the middle of our Latin America unit - during World Cup, the conference rooms (with TVs) get booked and the offices are close to vacant. One of my colleagues is as serious about soccer as I am about basketball and probably will be going.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW thanks for the other comment on my talk page, much appreciated. – ukexpat (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just being selfish. If you were to get disillusioned and stop helping at RFF, I don't think I could keep up :)--SPhilbrickT 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

2009–10 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team

Just wanted to say that you did some outstanding work on this article. Well done Maple Leaf (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not done, but ironically, not able to catchup because I'm out of town - went to Final Four, and now visiting relatives. Will finish some of the loose ends when I get home. You've domne some nice work on many other teams, now just hope that some fans stumble across them and fill them out.--SPhilbrickT 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting to go to the Final Four. What a great experience that must have been. No rush on the WNBA draft picks, but if you can do the UConn page, that would be appreciated. Hope you have a great weekend! Maple Leaf (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure how to fill out the table, but I looked at another one and figured it out, so I got it done. Thanks for the congrats, it has been a fun week.--SPhilbrickT 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Stuart G. Bugg and the debating.net ref

Hi,

I am questioning the ref for the debating win, I have been unsure about debating.net for some time and back in Feb 2010 took it to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (see here) unfortunately I did not get much help, only one comment from a non-involved editor which questioned its editorial policy.

I don't think it is appropriate for me to remove the cite during the AfD, but if the result is keep then I would change it back to {{citation Neeeded}} unless you wish to go back to the Reliable sources Noticeboard, in which case would leave it in till a consensus comes back from there.

Ta

Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a note to the Stuart G. Bugg talk page - I think it helps clarify the issue, but I'm not saying it ultimately resolves it - if the article survives, we have more to do. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion.--SPhilbrickT 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's fine, I agree pointless to look now. For the record it was me who tagged it {{citation Neeeded}} Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lexington Illinois

Yes I have made several very small edits. So so, I spent several hours on extensive edits of several paragraphs, lots of footnotes, etc. However, when I pushed save page rather than appearing as usual. A sign poped up that said something like user unknown , unable to contact site. They are not in any of mu list of edits. I can reconstruct the paragraphs but am afraid they will again vanish. Elkmilok (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

External links within userboxes

I have begun a discussion of the use of external links in userboxes at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#External links within userboxes. In that discussion I quote your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LightSpectra/Userboxes/CM, and include a link to your user page purely in order to identify you. I hope you don't object, and further hope that you will contribute to the discussion. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I wasn't entirely happy with the link in that user box, but it occurs to me that there may be valid reasons for external links from a user box, so we shouldn't simply declare that they are forbidden. I think getting community input is the right step.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Finister2.
Message added 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not argumentative at all—just plain wrong ;) No prob! ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 15:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Adminship question...

Have you ever considered going through the gauntlet that is RfA? If not, is there a specific reason? I have seen you about, and have generally been impressed with what I've seen!

If you would be interested, let me know - I'd then look in more detail through your contribs and see where we go from there!

If you would not be interested, then just let me know (it would be interesting in that case to see your reasons, but not necessary!)

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kelly Faris

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Give me one good reason why I shouldn't grant you rollback. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, happy to be able to fail that request. I don't seek out vandal fighting (think flagged revisions will be effective) so haven't asked. But I do run into some vandalism in the course of monitoring my watchlist, so sure. (Thanks)--SPhilbrickT 09:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as I suspected! Watchlist vandal-fighting is the way to go. Much more relaxing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:VerballyInsane/TB VerballyInsane 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Page creation

Hello, thanks a lot for the information. No, I didn't know about it and I will propose just proposed it in es.wikipedia. I think that the approach is original and right now I only see advantages. Best regards! --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The stone started rolling down the hill, let's see how it goes. I will keep you in the loop :-) --Poco a poco...¡adelante! 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the promise to keep me in the loop. While I had only minimal involvement in the creation of the Article Wizard (it looked like it was in good hands, so I didn't intrude much), I'm very interested in the evolution of how articles are created. Early on, the concept of WP:Bold made a lot of sense. Today, I'd like to see a little more work done on articles outside of Google indexed main space before they go live. At the same time, I'd like the see the hurdle of Notability reduced, while making it harder for stubs to get in. I'm just starting to formulate my thoughts, but allowing anyone to create draft articles fits into my view.--SPhilbrickT 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick for the welcome

I noticed the many pages about how to contribute to wikipedia are not actually tactical details about making a page but rather rules and regulations about limiting content on a page. It seems you guys are overly swamped with too many people putting up crap which is why that orientation. Anyhoo, have been reading ton(nes) of stuff to see how i can add a simple pic to a page and every time i think i found the steps, instead of telling me how to do it, it goes on ad nauseam about types of pic you shouldn't use, and obtaining permissions etc. etc. - without actually telling you specifically how to put the blasted pic live up there. somewhere there has to be clear simple text explaining this, can you direct me please? Thank you Witiger (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the Welcome, and ready if you are

Thank you for the welcome. The article (here) should be ready to be moved. Thanks again. Kilo w (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FEED

I am a bit tied up IRL at the moment so my participation on Wikipedia, particularly at WP:FEED may be severely limited for the next week or so. One other place where one can find hidden feedback/move to mainspace requests is WP:RM. – ukexpat (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. When you get less busy (if your life is anything like mine,that's mostly a joke), I don't think WP is performing adequately in terms of feedback, and I'd like to brainstorm to figure out how to improve it.SPhilbrickT 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! Ready to move the page =)

Hi Sphilbrick,

Thank you for your welcome =) I just checked in to Wikipedia again today. Thank you for your help in moving this article (here). And I am sorry if I make a mistake in the Wiki Etiquette since I am very new here =).

Momotaro86 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Review?

Hi Sphilbrick, If you have a moment, would you be kind enough to read this article and review it? Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals I would be most appreciative.BroWCarey (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I will. I'm not in town, and leaving to head home shortly, so it won't be until this evening. Give me a gentle nudge if you don't hear from me by tomorrow.SPhilbrickT

Much appreciated! BroWCarey (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up after moving an editors subpage to article space

{{adminhelp}}

I'm working on cleaning up Category:Requests to move a userspace draft

Occasionally, I find an article for which a move does seem appropriate.

Example: Nusantara Development Initiatives

However, I'd like to clean up after myself properly, and I'm not sure what to do about the redirect on the user subpage:

Example: User:Momotaro86/Nusantara Development Initiatives

I could:

1. Blank the page, and assume that will generate a request for deletion
2. Put a deletion request template on the page
3. Leave instructions for the editor to either blank it or add the right template
4. Do nothing
5. Something else

However, none of these (except the not very well-specified option 5) seem right.

What is the correct next step?

(I did read WP:MOVE, and perhaps the answer is there, but it didn't jump out at me.)

I'll leave the "adminhelp" in case there are other views, but I'd think {{db-r3}}, recently-created implausible redirect, would do fine. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I was hoping for something that didn't mean I'm creating work for sysops, but I'll go with this.--SPhilbrickT 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

However you do it, an admin has got to do the actual deletion, and R3s are quite easy - all that needs checking is that it's (a) recent and (b) implausible. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals and cleaning it up. In re: Notability, I used a page that described another denomination as a guideline. They had no more sources than this article does. On the page List of Christian denominations they don't want any denomination listed that doesn't have a wikipedia page on it. This suggests to me that each denomination is considered notable. When dealing with this type of thing, sometimes the only sources for info on a denomination will be the denomination itself, especially if it isn't one of the larger, older ones. That's my take on it. What do you think? I appreciate your feedback.BroWCarey (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a warning that your first point is the subject of an essay: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The guidelines for inclusion of articles have evolved over time, and oftentimes older articles either got in with different standards, or maybe just haven't caught the attention of a editor. I personally do not feel that more references are needed, but my personal belief isn't helpful if someone else tags it and a consensus concurs that more references are needed. My experience tells me that some editors will propose this article for deletion on the basis that it fails notability.

I'm aware that it is sometimes hard to find coverage in the general press. I have assisted another editor in a similar situation, but I have to report that I failed, and the article was deleted.

Finding an article in a national or local newspaper will be very helpful. Pointing out that another article does not have one will go nowhere.--SPhilbrickT 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks! BroWCarey (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I replied...

Hi, I provided some feedback to the proposals. That is a great idea and I hope it goes ahead - often the newcomers to Wikipedia can be really important :) Chevymontecarlo 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Create Article on Terrain Gallery

Hi. I am a fairly new editor and have been working on an article about the Terrain Gallery that is now ready to move to Wikipedia. This article was originally part of a larger article on Aesthetic Realism and it was recommended by the mediator who is working on a rewrite in progress that the Terrain Gallery be split out into a new article. It is now ready to be posted. I pasted {{move draft}} at the top of the page and am hoping that someone can assist me in getting it up. I also think a BLP template of some kind should be posted on the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BLP_others since there are living people named throughout the article. Thank you. Trouver (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--yes, the article name is Terrain Gallery. If you could move it I would really appreciate it, because I'm not that technically oriented. Trouver (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your questions:

After moving please add categories. --OK I WILL DO I'm fine with your BLP observation, but not sure which template is best, so I'll ask you to add that yourself. --OK I WILL DO Many people search for their article after it is moved—please note, if you try to search for it using the search option, it always takes some time, a few hours to a day, for it to show up in search. --SPhilbrickT 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I moved User:Trouver/Terrain per your request.--SPhilbrickT 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trouver" THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trouver (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your speedy reply. I have to go out of the house now but will finish the categories tonight, and also check out the "Did you Know?" and complete. Thanks for everything.Trouver (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I went to WP help desk and found you had answered someone else's question about creating a new article, so I decided to write to you directly. My request would not be on your log because the first time I made it was just minutes before you answered. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trouver (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re DYK: I think I have a good hook for this article. Could you nominate it? let me know if I should do anything. The hook I suggest is: DYT = that one of the first art galleries to exhibit photographs as fine art was the Terrain Gallery in NYC? Thanks Trouver (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good one. I had scanned the article and missed it. I'll be happy to nominate it. However, I am in NY at the moment, and would prefer to do it from my computer at home. Should be able to do it tomorrow evening. (You need do nothing at the moment, I'll do the nomination and monitor it - in many cases the reviewers ask some questions, if I cannot answer them, I'll come to you.)SPhilbrickT 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Indexing question

The indexing is incremental, but the index on the search nodes is updated only once a day (early GMT). Thus, although the indexer caught up late yesterday, the changes got propagated to search nodes only today. I haven't extensively tested it, but it looks fine to me now. In any case, thanks for reporting! --rainman (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Providing a second opinion on the notability of an article

Hello Sphilbrick. If you could provide a second opinion on the notability of the article [User:Hamidapharma1/Botanical Wisdom|here] and reply on its [entry] on the Feedback Forum it would be great. I am still unsure with the criteria with the notability of new articles so if you could help me out that would be great, thanks! Chevymontecarlo 19:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done.--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Chevymontecarlo 19:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

History of rugby union matches between Munster and New Zealand

Hi, thanks for reviewing my DYK nom. If you want to have a look at it again, I've trimmed down the hook and added a note. cheers GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I'm not an experienced DYK reviewer; I'm following the "propose one, review one" suggestion, and I've only proposed three. You trimmed down the original, but my character counter says 202. The Alt 1 is shorter, but grammatically, it isn't as clear as it should be what "it" refers to to. I found I could tweak the original and get it to 199. My suggestion is that if you find Alt 2 acceptable, you tweak the original to match Alt 2, I'll remove Alt 2, strike my comments and replace with a more definitive - "everything looks fine". Does that work? --SPhilbrickT 10:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats okay, I should probably review more myself! I actually prefer ALT2 and I'd be happy to go with that if you are? GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very leery of editing other people's comments, but I'll take this as permission to do so.--SPhilbrickT 11:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

yeh no bother, thanks for the quick review!GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Thanks for the message. I don't know what an "ordinary violation" is, but my usual practice is to report all corpnames on the basis that they are a blatant violation of WP:CORPNAME and should be blocked immediately. Most admins who patrol UAA seem to agree with this approach (there are a couple of exceptions). If the blocked user wants to request a change of name, they canm request an unblock to do so. – ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Feels a little Bitey to me, but I'll mull it over, in case I come up with a different approach.--SPhilbrickT 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have slightly amended my comments at the CC Probation RfC

Hi. You endorsed my original comments, so I am advising you that I have amended them after a discussion on my talkpage. You may wish to consider your endorsement. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FEED

Hi,

As you've noticed, I've managed to enlist a bit of help, to clear down FEED.

Further to the discussions on the talk page, the immediate idea is to try and ensure all the outstanding requests receive feedback.

Older ones, I am moving to the archive - only if they have received feedback, and appear 'done' as far as it goes. I am also telling each user on their talks that the feedback has been archived, etc. e.g. [1]

Some of the people helping have made mistakes, yes, but I think we're tracking those. It's great we're getting help.

Some of them are in IRC chat, discussing it; you could join with this if you wanted.

I'm absolutely not trying to step on toes; just trying to clear down the page, with a view to improving the process. Please see my comments and those of others on Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback.

Do let me know if there are any problems. I really appreciate the good stuff you do in FEED, and I hope we can make the system better. If I am doing anything wrong, please let me know. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Xtcy3's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An Award!

User:QwerpQwertus/The Puzzle Piece Award

You've been rewarded the Wiki Puzzle Piece Award - Puzzle Piece Five! ~ QwerpQwertus ------------------- Award One

DYK nomination of Terrain Gallery

Hello! Your submission of Terrain Gallery at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just went through the whole article, copyediting, reorganizing and cleaning it up. You do not need to quote the material in the references, just cite it. Often the explanatory note was exactly the same text as in the article! Now the only thing missing in the references are page numbers for articles in Art News, The Village Voice, and The New York Times which cannot be accessed on the computer.

Regarding the DYK nomination, the hook is very standard stuff for such an avant-garde gallery. Could you please suggest one or two different hooks which mention Aesthetic Realism or other philosophies which the Terrain endorses? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As nominator, I don't think I should be declaring that a DYK is good to go, but as you wrote the Alt hook, you might not be in a position to approve your own hook. I think we reached a great solution, with a vastly improved article and a good hook, I'd hate to stall here because others glance at this one and think it is being handled. I suggest that if you feel the article is OK, and two editors have endorsed the Alt hook, that you can go ahead and mark this approved. Does that make sense?--SPhilbrickT 15:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. The DYK reviewers often work together with the nominators to write the best hook; often we point out discrepancies or "tweak" the hooks to arrive at the best language. As I saw that you weren't coming up with a catchy hook, I suggested one, you approved it, and now it's approved and good to go! Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks For The Notice!

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Doc Quintana's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doc Quintana (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the message

Hi there. I caught your message on my talk page - thank you.

I'm much less clear than I used to be on the definition, as regards the Football Wikiproject guidelines on which leagues are professional and which are not - that and, because I haven't been active in football topics for a long while, I'm not sure which are generally accepted to be included and which are not. However, the Somalian league is not listed amongst the leagues here as being fully professional, and therefore those who have played merely in the Somalian leagues are probably not automatically notable unless they have played elsewhere.

All the best. Bobo. 19:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello! I left you a message at my talkpage. I feel bad for reverting your edit, even if accidentally, have a cookie: (::) Captain n00dle\^Talk 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I left another reply on my talkpage, just FYI Captain n00dle\^Talk 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Morning!

I added another bullet point to {{MovedtoMainspace}} about "adding links to your new article" and linked WP:Orphan. Just getting a third opinion that it's okay ^_^ Regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 10:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! =D Captain n00dle\^Talk 11:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

{{MovedtoMainspace|cats=true}} Template:MovedtoMainspace

{{MovedtoMainspace|cats=[[:Category:Caprimulgidae]]}} Template:MovedtoMainspace

Thanks, they both look good. Now if someone can just create a decent article so we can test them out!--SPhilbrickT 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Chzz and I are on IRC in #wikipedia-en-afc, discussing how best to merge {{move draft}} with WP:AfC--perhaps you could drop in for a bit? It's on freenode, if you have an IRC client, you can use this or if you don't, this. Thanks! —fetch·comms 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Terrain Gallery

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with my Hosa Tech page

Hi Shilbrick. Can you give me an example of how to reference? If I could just copy code from one article to my article, that would be most helpful. I did read some ways to citate, and included some reference tags in my article, but this must not have been 100% correct. I also took out some of the promotional wording and made it more generic. If I citate properly, will this be ready to publish? Thanks! Jmlnarik01 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do.--SPhilbrickT 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Tried it, Couldn't Get It To Work :(

I ran through all the steps you provided, but it is displaying an error, that I can't seem to fix. Can you take a look and help me out, please. I would like to cite all the references in the external section so I can have this published for Hosa Tech today. If you could help me to have this done, I would be eternally grateful!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hosa Tech References

Woo-hoo! I did it, and it makes sense. Thanks for your input and guiding me along!! I would love to have this moved. Do I need to put in another move request, or are you able to move it for me?

Thanks Shilbrick! Jmlnarik01 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will move it, but I warn you that many will view it as in violation of WP:PROMOTION. Make sure you make a copy of it someone somewhere, so if it gets deleted, you will still have it, if you want to discuss how to make sure it is acceptable. or maybe I'm wrong and it will be fine. --SPhilbrickT 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  16:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you a slightly off-topic question?

May I ask where you got the idea from your username from? it's just something I've been wondering about for a while. It's a bit unusual, but I guess when you look at usernames like Excirial and Chzz, or even my own username, it isn't so unusual. Not that there's nothing bad with unusual usernames. Chevymontecarlo 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite boring. My name is Stephen Philbrick. I go by "Phil" on online forums if I can get that name, but I was too late for that here. So I picked my first initial and last name. Like I said, boring. --SPhilbrickT 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I can cope with boring. I just got my username because I liked the car a bit. Chevymontecarlo 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a bad habit of thinking of you and ukexpat as my two UK go-to guys, then I remember what the "expat" in UKEXPATR means. For some reason, I think I saw that he knows little about cars.--SPhilbrickT 18:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly, perhaps, "Phil" is possibly approaching usurpable; see SUL - last I can see is Nov '09 on FR. If you were interested in getting that name, it could be worth a try.  Chzz  ►  19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am interested. --SPhilbrickT 19:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be able to ask (at wp:CHU/U) but you would never be able to TOTALLY get it on every WMF wiki (it would never be a fully unified account) because the account Phil on frWiki, frWiktionary and huWiki just have too many edits. It is possible those edits will also stop you from usurping here, but it doesn't hurt to ask. James (T C) 23:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonghan

Thanks Sphilbrick, for moving Bonghan Systems. I do check in on a regular (almost weekly) basis and am availabe to respond to changes. I will get to work and link the article to existing articles and add to categories. I would like to add images to the article but the currently published articles have images that are restricted to noncommercial use. I think that I could obtain permission from the researchers but I don't know exactly what format such permission needs to be in, etc. Is there a link that would help me with this?DavidWis (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Kamie Ethridge

Hi - thanks for all of your work on Kamie Ethridge. I started the page mainly because I couldn't believe a player of her stature in the game didn't already have an entry. For example, she was the only member of the 1988 Olympic team without an entry. Glad someone picked up the baton on her article, I remember her being a very dynamic player on that championship Texas team in the 80's. I don't have any connection to her so I don't have any pictures, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Sphilbrick - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonghan System quickly gutted

The article which you helped move was quickly gutted and replaced with this outdated statement: The traditions of qi and meridians have no counterpart in modern studies of chemistry, biology and physics and to date scientists have been unable to find evidence that supports their existence.[2]

Is this the how wikipedia is supposed to work? Is there a proper protocol for dealing with this kind of slander? I would appreciate your advice and assistance in this situation. DavidWis (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will see if I can find help as you recommended.DavidWis (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

It's unimportant, but I'm curious

I was intrigued by this and have taken a few stabs at deciphering the reference. As you are a dedicated and conscientious editor I was, and remain, appreciative of your support. I say that to convey that no explanation is necessary, only that I am curious. See ya 'round Tiderolls 17:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Singature

You have new messages (last change).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From QwerpQwertus ·_Talk_·_Contribs_·

Users who asked for feedback in past, giving feedback in future

Hi there.

Your comment about asking previous users got me thinking, so I did some data analysis - and I think I have a listing of good candidates for helping out.

I have extracted data on users that appear to have asked for feedback (by creating a new section on the page) during the year 2009, and who have more than 150 contributions.

See User:Chzz/feed.

I think that asking these people to help might be a very good idea, but I'm not sure about automating it; probably we should look at their request and what happened, and their contribs, before asking for their help - I have provided links to their 2009 request, and noted their edit count and the date of their most recent edit.

If you could, perhaps, work down the list and see what you think...

...if we wish to alter the criteria (number of edits, date range, etc) and re-run the query, I can do so.

I look forward to hearing what you think. As always, note, I am not good at 'watching' pages, so if you respond here, let me know on my talk too. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk; please read it. Also, remember, you can often find me online - this link will get you direct to my own channel. Chzz  ►  00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FEED proposal

Now in good enough shape to ask for comments in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_feedback#Change_we_need.  Chzz  ►  04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kamie Ethridge

Hello! Your submission of Kamie Ethridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Quasihuman (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks very much for helpful edits on Sophie Chandauka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.100.108 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help.--SPhilbrickT 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I can see how that could have been confusing. I think I meant to include the Mark Steyn information in the same parentheses with the Tim Blair sentence as a kind of aside about an earlier use of the term. Anyway, Hipocrite removed almost the entire passage and there's a discussion about it on the talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not communicating this well enough

I tried to explain what I was doing with that passage at Talk:The Gore Effect. Please take a look here. [2] If both you and Cla68 are disagreeing with me about this, perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough. I'm interested in seeing what you think. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I did misunderstand one point you made, later understood it better. Events have moved on, so I'm not going to look into this further unless it is still important to resolve.--SPhilbrickT 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kamie Ethridge

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing during AFD process

Per the notice incorporated in the AFD tag at the top of the page: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion" Active Banana (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But my edit summaries probably should have been more specific and clear about my intentions. Active Banana (talk)

Thanks. I over-reacted a bit, because I thought you removed a citation that was both highly relevant, and had been discussed a couple times. I was wrong. The good news is that I avoided accusing you of improper conduct, however, I should have read a little more carefully to avoid even implying you did something wrong. The dangers of editing highly contentious article. Oh well, I've learned a lesson, though it was one I thought I had already learned.--SPhilbrickT 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support! Duoduoduo (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Frisbee (TV network)

Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Frisbee (TV network) - a page you tagged - because: Foreign language articles are explicitly excluded from CSD G1. . Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Do not be discouraged from patrolling pages! Just check the criteria if in doubt and you'll be fine, I'm sure. decltype (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but it is discouraging. If I had failed to look at the criteria, and was proceeding on faulty memory or assumption, I'd be OK. But I made a point of checking the criteria. Part of me thinks the criteria should be written such that qualifying items are in one paragraph, and excluded are in another, as an aid to the reader, but part of me thinks I should just read more carefully.--SPhilbrickT 16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for the text being as clear and unambiguous as can be. Anyway, the article was a copy of an article on another project, so it was eligible for speedy still. My mistake for not checking that! decltype (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that's funny, because when the Twinkle list popped up, I saw that one of the options was that it may have come from another project. But I didn't know how to check that, so i didn't give it any consideration. Sorry to keep bothering you over this minor issue, but I am interested in learning from my mistakes, so I want to know.--SPhilbrickT 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you recognize the language, you could always pop over to that language's Wikipedia and see if it exists, although I personally think it's worth seeing if someone is willing to do a quick translate even if it does. Had I been fluent in Italian, I'd almost certainly have done this instead of tagging for deletion. Oh, and do feel free to bother me anytime you want! Regards, decltype (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nofeed Template

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for feedback.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus ·_Contact Me_·Get Adopted! 04:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - please help me out

Re. WP:FEED, new system

I think you've probably seen my comments on the talk page, about how we need to restructure the feedback system so that we have one page for each day, we transclude the most recent days on the main page, set up navigation, move the current requests across, add a box at the top showing the 'oldest outstanding requests', etc etc.

This really is desperately needed; the volume of requests now makes for a VERY long page, and archiving is not the best method at all; it can confuse new users, when their feedback 'disappears', etc. With a page-per-day, the links to their feedback would always remain - so we could alert them with a link on their talk page, and it won't matter if they check in 1 day, 1 week, 1 month or 1 year - their feedback will still be there.

I've had a 'demo' of it set up, and got a bit of help with the templates to auto-transclude the most recent days, etc - please look at User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback - please look also at a 'demo' day, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and the nav page, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.

The demo isn't quite perfect, but to be honest, if we wait until it is, nothing will happen. We need to boldly implement it.

To do that, first of all, we need to clear things.

So, can you please help me by moving any and all feedback into the archive, and tell the users with a note, something like this one.

The move-over to the new method will be much easier if we clear things down.

I'm going to ask others for help, and try to get help with the transclusions stuff too.

Sorry this is a bit of a long message; I think it's important to sort this out, ASAP - and I need help with it.

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Update - This has now happened; there is no need to archive anything, any more. Now there are separate pages for each day, we no longer need to move old requests into a separate archive.

The main WP:FEED page will automatically just show the past few days.

Please check over everything, because I'm sure there are lots of mistakes that need sorting out. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and the update - I will try to check it out today, but probably late in the day, at the end of of my work day.--SPhilbrickT 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Legrand

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

adminhelp

{{adminhelp}}

I moved a page at a user request. The resulting page is Baptism integrity. However, the user created the page in their user page, not a user subpage, so the user talk page came along for the ride. (I realized after doing the move, I should have unclicked the box to move the talk page.) I'd like to clean up my mess, but I'm not quite sure what to do. Can you tell me, and let me do it. so I learn?--SPhilbrickT 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I could move it back to User:Capcourt, then try the move again without bringing along the talk page. But I'm not sure that's the best thing to do.--SPhilbrickT 14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Move the talk page back, db-g6 the resultant redirect. –xeno^talk 14:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved the talk page back to its original location, and removed the redirects it created. There is an option on the move screen to move a page without moving the talk page as well. Unchecking that option should allow you to move a page without having the talk page tag along. Do note that moving a page creates a redirect as well, which is why his user page and user talk page pointed to the new article's. Unless you are an admin there is no way to prevent this (Admins can suppress redirects), so you should remove these redirects afterwards to allow for further editing. In a general-purpose sandbox simply creating a new page is sufficient, in a named sandbox you could mark the page as {{db-g7}} to ask for their removal. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi; I'm sorry that you seem to have got disconnected from IRC, so thought I'd answer here instead.

This 'moving userspace to live' thing - happens a lot, SPhil. No big problem.

If you'd only moved the user page over, not the talk, then all you need to do afterwards is edit the user talk page, which will have become a redirect to the live article, and I suggest replacing it with {{userpage}}.

In this case, someone had deleted it - so I've created a new one.

When you've accidentally moved the users talk page too, then yes, it's best to ask an admin to move it back. It's also useful to create a talk page for the live article, ie a Talk:Baptism integrity, with {{talkpage}}

Whilst writing this message, the live article Baptism integrity was deleted.

Nice work trying to help the user on their talk page. You might want to use a link to WP:USERSPACEDRAFT. Chzz  ►  14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Littleport, Cambridgeshire

Hi. I have been working on Little Thetford which is now WP:GAN. You were kind enough to welcome me when I first started editing in late May 2010. I was having a crack at Littleport, Cambridgeshire (diff]. Would you cast a brief eye over it (not a review by any means - one minute max). Let me know if you think I can change its quality from stub to start class please. I have annoted work in progress on the article talk page. --Senra (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First, congrats on the GAN, hope it goes well. As for Littleport, absolutely , the quality is at least start class - I haven't spent much time following the quality standards, but I feel comfortable saying it is well beyond stub class.

One minor question- I would have though "Parliament" would be capitalized, as you are referring to a specific one. You probably know the rules better than I do, but I would have guessed that lower-case meant the general concept, while upper-case would be used when referring to a specific body.

I like your approach of identifying work in progress on the talk page - I do that sometimes, and I think it helps potential editors who may consider contributing.

The article is looking great, thanks. --SPhilbrickT 16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged and thank yo0u for the tip. You are correct of course. --Senra (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles Nominated for Deletion

What happens when an article is nominated for deletion? Isn't it supposed to be removed by an agent after a week if there are no objections? Is there sometimes a backlog that builds up? We thought this would be gone by now. Thanks for any information or advice. LoreMariano (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I'm not actively in the process, but this is my understanding - when a proposed deletion tag is placed on the article, if no one contest it in the meantime, it will be on a list.

For example, that list is

Administrators are supposed be checking the items on the list and deleting them. However, it isn't the most urgent item on the list of things admins are supposed to do, so it could get backlogged at time. :I note here there are none from prior to 12 June, so it looks like they are roughly a day behind.--SPhilbrickT 14:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. I'll hold on another day!! LoreMariano (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, I added the ref links. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugenecurry blocked

You said,

Looks to me like "We don't like him, so he's blocked." What did I miss?

You didn't miss anything. Eugene was falsely accused by Slrubenstein of being an anti-Semite and Eugene brought the issue to AN/I, where absolutely nothing happened. Slrubenstein did not even offer an apology from what I can remember. And during that discussion another user implied that Eugene was pedophile enabler, and nothing was done about that either. On another occasion a few months back, Eugene received a death threat from another user (I forget his user name, but I can find it for you if you really want it). That user was blocked for a few weeks (a month?), and then was allowed to return after he issued an apology. I wonder how long Eugene will be blocked for a so-called "attack article"; an "attack article" that only a selected few people were allowed to view.

So, once again, you didn't miss anything. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment—it's a rather unsettling situation.--SPhilbrickT 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, full disclosure - I should have mentioned this earlier, but I have defended Eugene in the past because of the way he has been mistreated in relation AN/I as well as in his contributions to the Christ myth theory article. So, although I sincerely believe I'm being fair, I'm still involved in the dispute between SlimVirgin and Eugene. Be that as it may, what Eugene did was foolish and from what I've read on Slimvirgin's talk page, he regrets it and has apologized. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had some blistering encounters with Eugene. He tends to ABF and battle, and is very reluctant to compromise. But he exemplifies the anti-CMT position, so any consensus involving him on the page should be robust. Therefore I believe he is a valuable part of the process. Once it becomes apparent that he genuinely sees that his SV page was ad hom and not on, I'd like to see him back. But, since he'd be returning to a page regularly visited by SV, she would have to feel comfortable about it. I should point out, the blistering was mutual. Anthony (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Updated. Anthony (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, whether or not SV is comfortable about Eugene returning to a subject which he has a lot of knowledge about is not the issue. What is critically important is that Eugene owns his foolish behavior - which he has. If there is something else that needs to be done by Eugene to convince SV that he is sincerely sorry, then all she has to do is to state it.

At any rate, it is certainly true that you have had some "blistering encounters" with Eugene but such encounters have, from what I can recall, never been personal and ugly. You asked some very hard "show me" type of questions which, IMHO, was akin to steel sharpening steel. Well done, my friend. Therefore, after Eugene has done some time in the penalty box, all I'm suggesting is that his mistakes are evaluated in proportion to his contrition, as well as how he intends to conduct himself in the future. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It was dirty pool; an attempt to destabilize an opponent. Eugene knows that if it was posted, SV would be constantly troubled by it. The admins that blocked him read it that way. I did. SV did. Anybody would. Eugene needs to acknowledge there was an element of that - even if, at the time, he was kidding himself about his motives - and apologize for that. Presently, he's apologizing for a foolish mistake. That's not what's required here. What's required is something more. Anthony (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to destabilize an "opponent" such as SV is ludicrous. She is a well-established editor with very little, if anything, to fear. Eugene is a knowledgeable editor with regards to the CMT. Nevertheless, what is that thing which is "something more"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford

Little Thetford

You may not recall, but you were very welcoming to me as a new editor on 9th June 2010. I was frustrated that the {{cleanup}} hat was still there, even after I thought I had cleaned up the page. You corrected my assumption that it would automatically be removed. Your support at the time was very welcome. Little Thetford reached GA status today, so thank you. --Senra (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your post on my page—My answer here.

Reaching out is what I do. Seasoned editors can get frustrated at new editors. So anyone who provides a useful welcome to a new user like you did, deserves seeking out and thanking. I encourage you to continue such work. It really helps.

Treasure? Now now. Go easy. Anyway, I do not get turned off easily. I made early mistakes. They were my fault. I learned how to correct them or asked for help. I have been around enough boards in my time to learn a new one quickly enough.

Each to their own. I am truly sorry a GA has not come your way yet. It will. In the meantime, helping people the way you do needs to be treasured. Keep it up.

--Senra (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Do you happen to know Yoninah's email? I would like to ask his assistance on a particularly contentious section of an article now being re-written. It is so contentious that I am afraid to leave a message on his talk page. Since you and he did such good work on the Terrain Gallery article I thought I might ask, but it is much more difficult than that one. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not know Yoninah's email address. However, if you go to your preferences (i.e. "My preferences" at top of screen), click on user profile, then make sure you have a valid email address in the optional email box, and check the box next to "Enable e-mail from other users" that will trigger an entry in the toolbox (left margin) in your user page. (see my user page or talk page to see the entry "E-mail this user"). You could then leave a message at Yoninah's talk page requesting that you correspond my email, and if he is willing he can click on the link to send you an email. That way neither of you have to post your email address onwiki, but you will then have his email address, assuming he is willing to give it to you.

Is this clear? I've had a long day, and I'm not thinking clearly, so if my instructions aren't clear, just ask. It isn't hard, but it sure sounds complicated.--SPhilbrickT 01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Deburau

Hello. I hope this is not an imposition. I just finished (I think) my new page on the mime Charles Deburau, and I wondered if you'd be interested in looking it over before I move it to public view. If you don't have the time, please tell me; having been a teacher myself for many years, I know how precious the commodity is, and so can appreciate your frank admission of its paucity. (And maybe you can recommend another editor who can help?) At any rate, I think the page is generally okay (the block quotes are short, this time). I haven't added the images, since I've learned that they're verboten on subuser pages, but I have four good ones lined up. I know that the Séverin section should be in a page of its own, but until I write it it won't exist. So anyway: there it is. (A b-ball fan? I can't talk sports with you, alas, or at least team sports; tennis is the only game I follow; Wimbledon is now on the tube.) Oh: the page is available at User:Beebuk/Charles Deburau. Beebuk 23:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to check it out, but I can only wear my "I have a clue about Wikipedia" glasses on - not my "I have a clue about pantomime" because I don't own a pair of those.

Sorry we can't talk basketball, but I watched most of the Isner/Mahut match, so we can talk a little tennis - my wife is the tennis player and expert, though.--SPhilbrickT 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left an answer (at my own talk: should I do that?) to your long and very welcome set of notes that I just found on that page. What readerly heroism!! Beebuk 02:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Texas Longhorns women's basketball

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is the use of a primary document which contains an address were an identifiable living person can be found allowed? I have been told no, but also i have been told yes :). This is the article in question Science and Public Policy Institute this is a link to said document [3], i have removed it and posted on the article talk page, but if no-one sees that i`d like a second opinion, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the policies off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I just stumbled across the Arbcom evidence page, which has a due date of tomorrow, so I am working on my comments at the moment. Should I have some time after finishing that, I will take a look at your question. I hope to have plenty of time, but I do have some non-WP items I need to complete as well. I will try to respond later today in either case.--SPhilbrickT 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just looked it up, and WP:BLP seems pretty clear, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." OTOH, "if the primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". So unless the address is also published by a secondary source, it's not allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope AQFK's answers is helpful, my search for diffs is taking far longer than I had hoped.--SPhilbrickT 22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope that`s fine, should someone revert it back i know i can remove it without being dropped in the poop, thanks guys mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. You think getting advice from others will keep you from getting dumped on? :)--SPhilbrickT 22:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but it`s a bit of an umbrella :) mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's hope it's a sturdy one.--SPhilbrickT 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Section too long?

Did you check anyone else's? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just finished reading them all; I don't recall that any others were as long, but maybe I was more tired near the end, so the sheer length jumped out at me. I could be wrong, you are free to check.--SPhilbrickT 21:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ZP5 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously guys? This is not something either of you need to be discussing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're going to allow sections over the limit. But I don't quite see why you want to prohibit discussion of the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@Amory I was stunned to find that bringing an item under the remit of the clerk to the attention of the clerk was out of bounds. Message received. But checking on my talk page for discussions? Quite out of line.

@WMC - I agree. When I checked it, I was thown off by the collapsed section - and while considering whether or not it should be counted, then realizing it didn't matter, I missed that it wasn't the end of ZP5. My bad. But I'll let others mention it - once burned...--SPhilbrickT 11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Suit yourselves. I think you both know it's an unhelpful and pointless line of discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TGL is above 3k, for example; and that is ignoring the "reading guide" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on your talk page (now removed) no need to mention that one as it has already been addressed--SPhilbrickT 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ælfwaru, Aelfwaru, and Aefwaru

Hi. Thank you for your continued help. I really appreciate it. I do not like using helpme all the time, so I thought I would ask directly. I think I messed up again. These are the steps I did:

1. Created new page Ælfwaru
2. Created English alphabet equivalent redirecting Aefwaru (which I had misspelled) to Ælfwaru
3. Created correct spelling of English alphabet equivalent redirecting Aelfwaru to Ælfwaru
4. Tidied up redirects. At least I thought so
5. Marked Aefwaru for deletion
6. Typed Aelfwaru into a wikipedia search today and it went to Aefwaru

so something is still wrong. To try and be clear, Ælfwaru is the main page and Aelfwaru is a redirect page to Ælfwaru. Aefwaru should be deleted. Would you check my work please. Once again, so sorry for being such a pain.

In addition, I did a fancy partial transclusion of Talk:Ælfwaru (a cut/paste of a section from Talk:Little Thetford) to Talk:Little Thetford. I am proud of it as it seemed to work as I intended but I guess you had better check it too. --Senra (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good news, everything looks fine, regarding the Ælfwaru redirects. It sounds like it is working exactly as you want. I wondered if maybe some kind gnome cleaned up a double-redirect, but I don't see any evidence of that happening. In any event:

• the main article exists,
• the English alphabet equivalent exists, and
• properly redirects, while
• the misspelled one has been deleted.

I haven't yet checked out the cut/paste move, but I will. Back to more general comments.

Don't hesitate to use the WP:HELPDESK, they are very patient and interested in helping. Plus, it is easier for several people to look at a question and let the one with expertise answer it. Trust me, if you see the types of questions from people who don't have a clue, and whose efforts are barely improving WP, when someone sees the quality that you are producing, they will be thrilled to help.

Noted. The above (highlighted phrase) means a lot to me. I am 58 and currently out of work. Someone recognising that I can do something, really is appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you added the inuse template to Ælfwaru; please don't forget to remove it when you are not actively working on it.

 Done though I will back to finish this article. I used the in-use hat because S8333631 (talk · contribs) kept adding stuff like citation needed and inconclusive whilst I was writing the article. It was annoying me. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was really hoping someone would come through for you on the flesh-hook image, doesn't look like it will happen immediately, but I still have hope.--SPhilbrickT 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I am relaxed about it. I did my best and it did not happen. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One other minor point - when you said you searched for Aelfwaru (item 6 above), did that happen before midnight? Certain things get cleanup up around midnight, in particular, the index. Which might explain why it didn't work when you tried, but is fine now.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not before midnight, around 13:00 (GMT+1) today. It may have been a Firefox cache thing. I just used SHIFT-RELOAD then tried searching for "Aelfwaru" from wikipedia main page and it worked. So thanks you. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Duologue

Do you know any good arbitrators for this duologue here? --Senra (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are some interesting aspects to this question. I'm hampered by being rather uninterested in the concept of categories as they apply to WP - despite using them, but I do have a general interest in the concept of categorization. I'll also note that, while I don't know Nyttend personally, I've encountered the name quite often. I won't respnd immediately, as I would like to do some digging. Prod me if I don't respond in a day or two - I trust this is not time-urgent. I was planning to go away for the weekend (it's a holiday in the US) but I deiced to stay home and work on Wikipedia.--SPhilbrickT 15:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not let me stop you from having a good time. Seriously. Go 'shoot the cr*p', or whatever it is you do. The question was not aimed at you helping; rather you finding an arbiter. You seem to know more about wikipedia than I do. It can wait. No worries. --Senra (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for reminding me what you asked - find a third party, not an answer. To that end, check out Wikipedia:Third opinion. I still want to look into it myself.--SPhilbrickT 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And uh, maybe I should have checked out the link before passing it along. I see Third Opinion is for disagreements that have reached a standstill - that may be premature in this case.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved amicably. Go have some fun IRL :) --Senra (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Argggh! What horrible timing! After saying that I had no interest in categories, I realized I have used a couple, one in particular Category:Connecticut articles missing geocoordinate data. Then I thought about what would happen if someone decided to create a subcategory, say Category:Hartford articles missing geocoordinate data, and argued that items should be in one or the other but not both. And that seems wrong. So I was just about to give a good reason why it does make sense to have an item in a category AND a subcategory, and you've gone off and reached an agreement without my help. (I'm remembering a real life incident involving an aunt and uncle who were looking to get a divorce and hired a divorce lawyer. While the paperwork was being filed, they decided they could patch things up - but the divorce lawyer, worried about losing a fee, interceded and made sure they divorced.) Seriously, glad it was resolved.--SPhilbrickT 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Battleground atmosphere at ArbCom case

You would think that now that the case is before ArbCom, everyone would be on their best behavior. Instead, the partisan fighting hasn't seemed to have ended. I have half a mind to come up with a list of diff's showing all the bad faith assumptions, uncivil behavior, etc that's going on at the ArbCom workshop and evidence pages. Is there any value in such a list? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on it, but leaning toward no. (Assuming you really wanted to know if it was a good idea to compile such a list—the distinction being, of course there's value in such a list, the question is whether the positive value of the list outweigh possible fallout arising from the compilation.)

First, I've observed the same thing, and was briefly tempted to make a bad Monthly Python joke (this isn't the insult room it's the argument room–actually, I've forgotten exactly how it went, and was too lazy to look it up)

Briefly, I considered whether it should be compiled in a user subpage, and just referenced here, just so it wouldn't be so "in your face". I decided that had not enough merit.

My main point, is that it might be viewed as insulting to the arbitration committee - I imagine Carcharoth responding "c'mom, you didn't think we could figure that out on my own? Give us some credit".

The other reason is that we are both striving to be viewed as not on one side or the other - although I confess you are doing a better job of that than I. While such a list has more value if it comes from someone not fully invested in one side or the other, the very nature of the compilation is likely to sully that reputation. If there aren't identical number of examples from both camps, you will be accused of being secretly in one camp (and very possibly even if the counts are identical). If you point out lack of decorum by user:xyz, they may make it their mission to find some comment by you that could possibly, if you look at it sideways, be construed as incivil, thereby labeling you hypocritical. Arguing that it is not such example would be very tricky.

All that said, it is a cogent observation, and it will be difficult to refrain from making a comment about it at some time.--SPhilbrickT 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Relax. Don't do it. When you want to (...rest of song deleted for decency). Actually, I popped in here for something else. Now what was it? --Senra (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought for a second you were posting in the wrong place, but I see you are in the, uh, right room. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, good points all around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Flesh-hooks

As far as the software is concerned, disambiguation pages are articles. Therefore, all you need to do is to rework the page: instead of listing the items that could be meant by someone who finds the page, discuss what they are and, if necessary, link to examples. It's definitely very simple. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's easy enough.--SPhilbrickT 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

First of all, I want to thank you again for your review; you've been most kind and thorough!
As far as adminship is concerned, I've decided to heed your advice and wait a couple of months, to try and gather a little more experience. I know that, when it comes to article creation, I'm a little lacking, but I've always seen myself as a metapedian (however, I'm trying to change that) and I also know that I should be more active in XfD... All in all, it's always good to see how people perceive you. Again, thanks; I'll try to take your suggestions on board. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

XfD, especially AfD, isn't something I enjoy doing. I do it because I feel one should do one's fair share of the less pleasant tasks. In my case, I'm weak in Afd, as well as AN and ANI. I look forward to supporting you for sysop fairly soon.--SPhilbrickT 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I very well understand you; I think that quite often, AfDs turn into drama-fests (even more than AN and ANI), that's why I try to shun them, but you're right when you say that we all should do a bit of dirty work... So, yes, expect to see more of me there. ^__^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD question

I'm really not sure I can answer your question. From what I can tell, any outcome in an AfD other than 'delete' can be left to the other voters to carry out; for example if it's a merge then you could redirect the pages without deleting them so that others could pull up information from the redirected versions and merge it in slowly. An example of a page that was kept at AfD but redirected is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd nomination) (the redirect was later reversed). —Soap— 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford (2)

Little Thetford is being prepared as a WP:FAC. The latest peer-review, rightly, comments negatively on the article introduction. I believe getting this right, sets the tone for the rest of the article. I have had a try at re-writing the lead before --> and after.

I am far too close to the article to be objective enough. Do you know anyone who can help me get this right? --Senra (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no need for the above. Article is going through FAC now --Senra (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hosa Technology - Ready to go live

Hi Shilbrick,

I went back in to check the Wiki page I created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosa_Technology) and see the following message:

"This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (May 2010)"

Since you have already reviewed the article, can you process and post it without the message showing? Jmlnarik01 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 11:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done removed peacock terms; made it less advertisement like; removed advert hat. Has the user Jmlnarik01 gone? Ho hum. It was good practice for me anyway --Senra (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talback Senra

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

RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams

A Request for Comment has been opened concerning whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories about University of Connecticut athletic teams. You are invited to comment here: Category talk:UConn Huskies#RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams. As a frequent editor of UConn women's basketball articles, I thought you in particular would be interested. –Grondemar 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Season pages

Hi there. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I really appreciate your work. These season pages can seem like a full-time job sometimes. Before I do anything for the upcoming season, I am trying to finish up the recent seasons for women's hockey and basketball. All the best. Maple Leaf (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Robb Forman Dew page

Thanks for the feedback on the Robb Forman Dew page. I think I did what you asked. Let me know if there's anything else (sorry if I'm responding in the wrong place). Somewikiwork (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford image replacement proposal

Little Thetford—Proposal to replace existing 2006 image of roundhouse with 1906 image. Please join the debate --Senra (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

I saw your comment at RfE about the despute today at the Robert Watson article. ArbCom has extended their deadline to introduce new evidence relating to this particular dispute. I'd like to create a timeline of the incident so that ArbCom has a fair and accurate portrayal of what happened. So I've create a user page here. Can you please review this page and offer and guidance or feedback? Feel free to edit the page, too. Right now, I have (I hope!) a complete timeline of edits to the actual article. I plan expanding the evidence to include the talk page discussions, the RfEs, user page discussions, ANI, etc..

BTW, I notice that you help out a lot at our Help Desk. Would you happen to know how to put this evidence in a grid? I think it might be helpful to ArbCom if they could sort/filter the data on the fly. I know that this article has grid sorting, but not filtering. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're killing me.

Last week, I gave some thought to putting some of the evidence in a grid. The more I thought about, the more I thought it would be useful but I kept thinking of things to add. Then I realized if I started it, that it would suck the life out of me, so I backed away.

I composed two posts related to the Watson issue, and didn't pull the trigger on either one. I can't figure out why so many people are calling it vandalism, when it clearly isn't, so I wonder if there's something people aren't saying.

I'll take a look at the timeline.--SPhilbrickT 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've only collected evidence for the article and the article talk page and I think that already it's way too unwieldy. I think I'm going to quit for the night so you can have free rein with it if you want. I'm not sure if I want to stick with straight evidence or also add an analysis section at the end of it. What I find most troubling so far (and nobody has noticed this AFAIK) is that WMC reverts the IP's contributions and marks the revert as minor. It seems as if WMC wanted to cover his tracks so no one would know. I agree that the edits are clearly not vandalism. The other thing I find troubling is that nobody seems to mention BLP issues until towards the end of the edit war, and even then, there's no explanation as to what exactly the BLP violation is. I think it eventually gets mentioned at RfE, but based on the article edit summaries and talk page, I can't figure out what the BLP violation is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess my immediate thought when seeing it was "minor" was to consider a ban on WMC ever using "minor". However, that was an over-reaction. I think I've seen some editors argue that reversion of vandalism counts as minor. I take a different view regarding how I use minor, but I can understand the rationale. Now, there's no question that anyone with a clue knows it isn't vandalism, but if you honestly think it is vandalism, then the "minor" tick box is acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding format - I'd like to either see some formatting applied - e.g. bolding editor names, color coding article versus talk - or go full bore table. I know how to doa sortable table - I've never seen a filtered table (although ironically, I was looking at a filtered table today at work, and realized I need to use it as a test case in a work project, but that's a different issue, albeit an issue that is keeping my WP time limited).--SPhilbrickT 01:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a table something that you would be willing to work on? I'm going to work on some non-CC related work and then go to sleep for the night. I have softball practice tomorrow morning so I probably won't resume work on the evidence until early afternoon (CST) tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First pass User:Sphilbrick/Robert Watson incident timeline

Looks great. Very much what I had in mind. I would add another column (or something) to distinguish between these links and evidence from the RfE, ANI, and User talk pages (which I haven't added yet). Thanks for all your help. Going to bed now. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• For reasons I haven't figured out, the sorting of the editors is a little funky. Normally, it should toggle between up and down, but it seems to cycle through four, depending on whether it put the numebr IP value at the top or bottom.
• I was going with bold for editors, but that was to make them stand out - not needed if they have their own column.
• I trust it is obvious why sorting on link doesn't sort by link number - but you can always get that back by sorting by time.
• I haven't done a proofread, will do that in the morning.
• If you pick up the RfE etc links, I'll add them. I think I would just use the article/talk column and add Rfe, ANI and user talk as options. If you don't do that right away, I may try to do it myself. --SPhilbrickT 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making the following two changes:

1. Replaced "WMC" with "William M. Connolley" for consistency.
2. Added WikiLinks for all the editors. This looks nicer. I'm not sure how to do this with IP's so I left 211.28.194.74 unchanged.

I will start collecting evidence at other pages now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added additional evidence from the other pages to the timeline's talk page. I think we need another column to indication which page we're talking about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<-I thought you had softball and weren't going to be around until later? Or maybe it is later. I went out and did some brushclearing, but now can work on it.

• I composed a post to Hypocrite to let him know about it, but decided to wait to talk to you first.
• I noticed Hypocrite has his own summary of the incident - with his spin on it - that not a criticism - I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out evidence with "guiding" commentary, but I assume we are attempting to be as neutral as possible. One thought I have is to distinguish your comments form literal quotes by italicizing actual quoted material. Or using a different text color - or letting it go because you used quotes.
• I'll bring the new material into the table over the next hour or so.--SPhilbrickT 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I woke up early and decided to finish it off. I'll leave for softball in about 45 minutes. Yes, I'd like to be as neutral as possible. I used quotes, so I think it's fine as is, but don't have a strong opinion. Do what you like. I think a little color would be nice, something subtle, at least in the headers. Do you want to post this evidence, or should I? It doesn't matter much to me. Oh, one note that we should be clear on is that I collected all the diffs from both the article and it's talk page, and the first diff of every discussion else where. There are probably a couple hundred or more diffs scattered all over the place, and I had to draw the line somewhere. If there are other diffs that are relevant, I'm sure other editors will present them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've almost finished with the new set - I'm remembering why I'm not in IT - struggling with some simple text manipulation, but I'm getting there. Unless you object, my plan is to tell Hypocrite - on ythe chnace that he agrees to link it in at his evidence section - I don't think it is quite kosher for me to edit his evidence section. If that fails, or even if it doesn't I'll look into linking it into my section, with something prominently mentioning Watson and you might do the same, so it comes across - hopefully as collaborative, not as the new Cabal.--SPhilbrickT 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking that one of us would create our own evidence section and copy and paste the table at the ArbCom case. I was only using a user page as a temporary holding place to work with until the table was done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Almost done, but I've learned wthat when I copy a table into a page,t here's at least a 50/50 chance it will hang Mozilla, and I have to get out and back in.--SPhilbrickT 14:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, up, now needs cleanup and review - I have to check the sorting, and there was one entry before that looked odd. I left the original table below. You mentioned needing an additional column, I didn't do that see if this works, or you still want a separate column - oh and I need to add explanatory text re - all diffs versus first diff from talk page--SPhilbrickT 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed some of the material is truncated. Will work on fixing (maybe cut to 255 characters?)

<-

• OK, truncation errors are fixed, I think.
• While the table is sortable we should decide the default order.
• At present it is Watson Article and Talk in chron order, then all other diffs in chron order.
• I think that's fine, as someone might want to just see the article and talk in chron order, and this is the only way to see it.
• The other option is to start with pure chron order of all entries - advantage - cleaner, disadvantage - while you can sort by edit location and see any group together, you can't see the article and talk diffs as a group in chron order.
• One other thing - the table is long enough that I think it should be presented in collapsed format, other than the intro.
• I'm leaning toward your idea of a separate evidence section, with this material only, and encourage Hippocrite to refer to it.

• I posted a courtesy note to Hippocrite.
• I'm not planning on any color coding, I think it is clear enough.
• I'm going to go clean up the trees I cut down for a couple hours, will check back then so we can settle on where to place it
• I'll add the collapse, just so it is clear how it looks

It looks good. I changed the title (well, the collapse title) to include the word "article" since the dispute was about the article and Robert Watson (the person) had nothing to do with it. I also changed "incident" to "dispute". I think the default sort should be chronological for all the diffs regardless of the location. When I compiled this timeline, one of the things that struck me was how quickly the dispute escalated with very little communication on the article talk page. This is easier to see in chronological order.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Did you win your game?
• I will reorder the table so it starts in strict chron order.
• I'm looking at the evid4ence page, and think we should add a new section titled "Evidence presented by Aquest for Knowledge and Sphilbrick"
• Then drop in the collapsed table with the intro.
• Please make sure you are happy with the intro wording, then I'll be happy to move it into evidence
• Will take a bit to fix the table, I'm just sitting down to a meal--SPhilbrickT 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was just practice. Yes, I'm fine with the intro wording. Sure, "Evidence presented by A Quest for Knowledge and Sphilbrick" is fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, updated - I'm going to go for it.--SPhilbrickT 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, go for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I take it as obvious that while I posted it, you have the rights to edit it if you see needed improvements. I will follow up with a notice to anyone who posted about this incident on the evidence page - I think notifying all participants is overkill, unless it is required.--SPhilbrickT 18:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone?--SPhilbrickT 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we probably should notify USER:Off2riorob, USER:Atmoz, USER:WVBluefield and USER:ATren. I'm not sure Off2riorob knows there's an ArbCom case and I'm not sure I recognize WVBluefield.  ::::::::::I think that Atmoz might be a regular CC editor but I don't think he edits the same articles I do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I added mark nutley. I did not add WMC - I don't want to be too anal, but I don't want to be arbitrary - so far, my list is anyone who mentioned Watson in their evidence. If I go beyond that, I feel obligated to notify anyone who was involved; at this moment, it sounds like overkill, but I can do it.--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC made reference to the incident so I informed him--SPhilbrickT 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your listed times are Central Daylight Time - add five to get to UTC if you want server time. Since relative timing is the key here I doubt that it actually matters one way or another. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I had thought it would be less arbitrary to use server time, but the data was compiled before we considered changing it. As you say, it is more a way to identify the relative order, so not critical. If others express a preference for server time, I'll look into fixing it. --SPhilbrickT 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon

Now that you've finished that one, do you feel like doing one to illustrate the edit war on Lawrence Solomon around July 9th?  :) I can't remember now who asked Rlevse, but that edit war was mentioned and he said evidence could be late-included since it was after the evidence deadline of July 7. I left the same message on AQFK's talk page as well. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: I direct your attention to User:A Quest For Knowledge/Lawrence Solomon article dispute of July 8-10. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on it - can you tell me if there is a need for the field Edit Location" or is it the case that these are all in the same place - I know, i can figure it out, but I want confirmation.--SPhilbrickT 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First pass done - has errors, but I see why - see User:Sphilbrick/Lawrence Solomon article dispute of July 8-10

It looks like the wrong names are being displayed. Do you know why? Is it something that needs to be fixed on my end or your end? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably my end - I'll look - I have to fix date sorting first--SPhilbrickT 02:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just going through the content -- it would be helpful if you had a column for article or talk. That is confusing me a little trying to sort it out. Maybe start it with Connolley's reversion of "environmenalist" also because that is where the edit war kicked off. Just suggestions, disregard if you don't like them. And thank you both for the work you're putting in to this.

The problem with the time and date sorting might be fixed by simply putting the date first (before the time). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that I didn't answer your question, "can you tell me if there is a need for the field Edit Location or is it the case that these are all in the same place". All the diffs are in the article or article talk page. I didn't collect diffs from other pages. This took a while to compile and I had to draw the line somewhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NP - I had spot checked a few and only hit talk pages - then you noted that some were article and some were talk, so I added the field - I did it by "hand"- think I got them all right, but might have slipped up - if you note any errors - just ask. BTW, on the first one I used text-to-columns in Excel, but it worked badly. I got frustrated, but found another way to do it, so it is easier; just mentioning in case there's a need to do this again, it is getting easier - although you are doing the hard work. I looked to see if WP supported filtering of tables, but I didn't find anything encouraging - the ability to filter a table would be nice.--SPhilbrickT 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the current status? What work needs to be done? BTW, ArbCom has indicated that they will they're going to post their PD (which I think means "proposed decision") early tonight, EST. Will this evidence even matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, good point. While I was close to the Watson incident, so had no problem adding an evidence section, I'm not close enough to this one to know what should be done. I haven't seen the dispensation for adding this - I presumed that either you or Minor4th would be adding this one - but I agree we need to decide what to do next.--SPhilbrickT 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 18:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice

I know you have been kind to me, especially (not exclusively) when I first started making edits. Please do not feel dragged into something new (I can see you are very busy). I simply need a little advice. Not sure what I can do. I am reluctant to link, as it leaves a trace (in what-links-here for example), so I will describe an apparent edit war going on (edit 20:06, 16 July 2010 by unknown IP; 21:23, 16 July 2010 my rv; 22:43, 16 July 2010 rv by unknown IP) in an article I am very familiar with. I am trying hard not to rise to the apparent war. (a) am I taking the right actions (i.e. none since one revert which I now regret)? (b) are such events normal? (c) what caused it? (d) how can I avoid it in future? (e) is it a war if I don't rv again? --Senra (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Well, well, well.

I just reviewed the FAC. I'm exhausted. I've never gone through GAN, much less FAC—in a very vague way I knew it was intense, but now that I've seen it upclose - wow.

You are to be commended for the work you've done.

That said, back to the matter at hand.

I have the luxury, (and burden) of being less invested in it than you, so while you may see an intractable stalemate, currently locked at the least attractive (to me) of there options - I see it as the usual give and take of a discussion that doesn't go quite as cleanly as one would like, i.e., get informed input from several parties, then note a clear consensus for a great solution, implement and move on. Instead, a request to choose A or B became Let's try A and B.

I'll also note, as my friends can confirm, that I may be totally offbase and missing the whole point - while you supplied time stamps, I didn't see those exact times, so I may be making an improper inference.

I'm about to throw my two cents in; if I am not even dealing with the right incident, hit me with a trout and I'll take care to do the simple math to make sure I'm right.

BTW, I deliberately did not try to ascertain which position you preferred, and that's as it should be.--SPhilbrickT 21:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We may see different times due time-zone settings I guess. Anyway, thank you for stepping in --Senra (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Duro Bag Mfg

I was wondering if you could review my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gcorwin/Duro_Bag_Mfg for relevance for inclusion. I requested this once before, but no one has responded. Thank you in advance..

Greg Corwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcorwin (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrickT 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A request

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

Indital - Newly Created Wiki page

Hi Shilbrick,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you again. You were so helpful last time around with Hosa Technology, I thought I would ask for your review for my newly created Wikipedia page for Indital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indital).

Would you mind reviewing and, if all looks good, moving it to the main space?

Thanks Jmlnarik01 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it this evening, although I note it is already in main space.--SPhilbrickT 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - Newly Created Wiki page - Follow up

Great, thanks so much. I believe it is in the main space now, but it is still listed as an "unreviewed article."needs a review to remove the tag. Thanks Shilbrick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get to ii last night - the hotel I stayed in lost power, so no internet - will try again today.--SPhilbrickT 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrickT 12:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do, in fact, clean up after myself

Thanks for leaving me a 2nd, clearer question.

In the edit summary for your 2nd question you wrote: "Possible solution for afghan training camp articles: I'll be willing to support a userfy plan, if..." But it doesn't look like you ever checked back to see if I responded to your second question.

Mere minutes afterwards you left comments on some {{afd}}, where you described my first answer as "non-responsive", and where you stated that you thought I was trying to get everybody else to clean up after my mistakes. Here is the timeline.

• your first question
• my reply
• your 2nd question
• delete comment
• delete comment
• my 2nd reply

You may think I wasn't responsive to your first question. For the record I did my best to respond to the question you left. If you found it non-responsive, I am going to suggest you consider it was unresponsive to a question you didn't actually leave.

I didn't know you found my question "non-responsive" when I left my second answer. I didn't know you had left those comments about your opinion of my intentions on those {{afd}}.

I trust you now understand that your concern that I was trying to get the wider wikipedia community to clean up after mistakes I had made was based on a misconception. I suggest that even if, for some reason, you doubt my truthfulness, that my contribution history shows I do clean up after myself.

Here are links that show I spent one entire weekend addressing a problem that cropped up due to a lack of understanding on my part as to what should go in the template name space. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did read your second response.

Let me tell you how I view the situation. Who knows, maybe some of my assumptions are flawed, and there would be value in correctly my views.

• I have absolutely no interest in Afghan training camps, although I do have an interest in ensuring that WP is a good resource for people to learn things, including learning about Afghan training camps.
• I suspect I am not alone in my interest or lack thereof. This is not intended as a quality comment on the subject matter. I have intense in articles about women basketball players, and fully understand that these articles would bore many to tears.
• You have invested considerable time in researching documents relating to such training camps and related issues.
• I think it is wonderful that people have varying interests, and people with intense interests in a subject can contribute to an encyclopedia in a way that people with moderate interest can learn( in other words, there are people who would like to read about it, but not spend hours doing Google or library searches).
• I've looked at some of the articles proposed for deletion, and think the material could be merged into other articles. However, having considered what needs to be done, it is my view that it might take me hours to do a few, because I need to read the material carefully, familiarize myself with the names of the individuals, the names of the locations, and deal with the complications of occasional multiple versions of names for camps and individuals.
• It is my belief that you have done all this reading, and have a decent familiarity with the subject matter.
• I conclude that you could do a merge in minutes that might literally take me an hour to do.

Do you disagree with any of these assumptions?

Because they explain my view, that you could probably do the merges in less time than it took you to write a response to me, while it would take me, or anyone else not intimately familiar with the subject matter, quite some time. That why I view it as disingenuous that you want the AfD to be closed as a merge. I think you could do the merge in less time that it take you to post the argument. But even if I am wrong, and the merge is a lot of work, why should others do it? Is there any reason to think that others can do it faster or more efficiently than you?

If you say you are willing to do the merge, why not go ahead and do it? It has been weeks since my first question, and unless my assumptions are badly flawed, you could have merged the articles in less time than you have spent arguing about it.

Am I wrong in assuming it would be easier for you to do the merge than anyone else? --SPhilbrickT 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I anticipate that a simple cut and paste style merge, one that doesn't add several well written, and extremely well documented paragraphs of background would be almost immediately nominated for deletion itself. I continue to think the merge I proposed is worthwhile. I think it will take about six hours of work, within a factor or two. Three hours would be the bare minimum. I think that amount of work is worthwhile for this topic. I think several times that much work would be worthwhile.

I wrote a response to those who think that by working to suppress material on the captives they are "fighting terrorism" in this document By helping to make the public information about Guantanamo suspects more accessible, aren't I "helping terrorists". Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you talk about 3-6 hours for a merge, are you talking about merging one of the articles, or all of them? Plus, I'll repeat my last question, which you may have missed "Am I wrong in assuming it would be easier for you to do the merge than anyone else?"--SPhilbrickT 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I think you are correct that my previous investigation into these topics would make some aspects of this merge easier for me to do a good job at than other contributors who who would have to spend more time reviewing the references. On the other hand, challengers might look at a draft I prepared, and say my draft showed blinkered thinking. But, as I previously stated, I am prepared to do the work, and no one else has indicated they have the time or energy, which definitely makes me the prime candidate.
   • I have seen articles, that were sent to {{afd}}, had a merge conclusion, where no-one ended up doing the merge at all.
   • And I have seen articles with terribly disappointing merges, simply cut and paste, with no real editing whatsoever. Some merges cut and paste whole article(s), to section(s) of another article, and then turn the merged article(s) into redirects to the sub-section heading. I am very strongly opposed to this practice, because I consider redirects to subsection heading, in article space, deeply broken. These redirects look like real wikilinks, but they don't work like real wikilinks. (1) One can't put them on one's watchlist; (2) one can't use the "what links here" button on these wikilinks; (3) there is no warning to good faith editors that even the most minor change to the spelling, wording, punctuation, capitalization or spacing, will break wikilinks.
2. When I was just about the only person making changes to multiple articles connected to Guantanamo, I sometimes laid out plans I had for changes, or asked for feedback via email or on a few other contributors talk pages. But I didn't do so consistently. I am no longer essentially the only person. User:Iqinn has made 14,000 of their 15,000 edits associated with these topics. Both User:Iqinn and I should be generally sharing our plans and concerns. So far I am sharing those plans, and IQinn isn't
3. I anticipate it would take 3-12 hours, not 3-6 hours.
4. To follow up on a comment you made a couple of days ago, I think we should try to cover important topics, even if no-one is interested in them. Some years ago I started creating maps on little-known places, like Erie Pennsylvania, and Biloxi, Mississippi. Hardly anyone visited them. But when Hurricane Katrina came along, and hit both New Orleans and Biloxi, lots of people wanted to know where Biloxi was. One never knows when an apparently uninteresting topic will become of wide interest. Good encyclopedia's cover those apparently boring topics too. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

My apologies on the mis-attribution (I've since fixed it) -- I tend to skim over the debates on those talk pages these days because of their length and repetitiveness. Anyway, thanks for the note. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - UPDATE

Hi Sphilbrick - Thanks for your notes. I'm working on becoming better at this. Your points are helping me to become a much better Wiki writer, so much appreciated.

My updates are listed in BOLD in your above review. Can you check my page again? Hopefully I made appropriate adjustments. I also changed some wording throughout to make it sound more like it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - UPDATE

Thanks Sphilbrick - I look forward to your Friday review!