User talk:Sphilbrick
Talkback
Message added 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Christian right
I will not respond to you on that DRN, as it's way off the rails.
The issue here is that the conservative editors, for reasons that are genuinely unclear to me, seem to want to scrub all mention of the connection between the Christian Right and the Republican Party.
As it stands, if you're part of the CR in America, you almost certainly vote Republican, and this has created a powerful voting block that heavily influences -- if not outright controls -- the GOP platform on social issues.
That's not my opinion; it's what reliable sources say. And it's what the article must say. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see it as off the rails at all. I see a couple pointed comments, which, in the interest of dispute resolution, would be better left unsaid, but one has to have a pretty thin skin to be so-offended as to walk away based upon some mild comments that didn't even mention your name. It's my opinion that someone who walks away form a dispute resolution that has barely started, with no provocation, should be prohibited form contributing to the article in question. We don't have such a rule, but I'm thinking it is a good idea, and you could be a good test case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Plus, you are over-reacting, and ought to rethink your position. I do not see ANY support for your claim that anyone wants "to want to scrub all mention of the connection between the Christian Right and the Republican Party". I object to over-simplification. Do you support over-simplification?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- However, this is not a good place to debate the merits of the content. A dispute resolution has been instigated. You are declaring you are leaving in a huff, for vague reasons. If we allow anyone to walk out of dispute resolution for any pretext, then continue editing the article in question as if the DR never took place, there's no point in holding a DR. One way to get people to take DR seriously is to allow parties to engage or not, as they see fit, but if they choose not to engage, they should agree to leave the article. Do you have a better option?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- In response to Look at the edit history, I'm notoriously bad at reading people's minds. Are you trying to make a point? If so what is the point?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing vague involved. Dispute resolution requires good faith and they don't have any, so I won't participate. The right place to discuss this content issue is the talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see a valid reason for refusal to engage. Not surprisingly, those you have been in dispute with feel strongly. I don't see any evidence that any of the volunteers have treated you badly. It may be easier to reach a consensus without you. I do agree that the place to discuss the content issue is the talk page. I don't anticipate that the DR will get down to precise word-smithing, but they might conclude, for example, that the list approach is not appropriate. Debating the exact wording of the appropriate prose should take place on the talk page, and I hope you will contribute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look at my user page and you might notice a fact relevant to dispute resolution. Suffice it to say that I've concluded DRN is worse than useless. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I like a good mystery, but I like it on my own terms. I glanced at your user page, have no idea what you are getting at, and not inclined to try to figure it out. Suffice it to say I see no evidence that you've given Dispute Resolution a chance.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look at my user page and you might notice a fact relevant to dispute resolution. Suffice it to say that I've concluded DRN is worse than useless. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see a valid reason for refusal to engage. Not surprisingly, those you have been in dispute with feel strongly. I don't see any evidence that any of the volunteers have treated you badly. It may be easier to reach a consensus without you. I do agree that the place to discuss the content issue is the talk page. I don't anticipate that the DR will get down to precise word-smithing, but they might conclude, for example, that the list approach is not appropriate. Debating the exact wording of the appropriate prose should take place on the talk page, and I hope you will contribute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing vague involved. Dispute resolution requires good faith and they don't have any, so I won't participate. The right place to discuss this content issue is the talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, I am not permitted to dispel your mystery. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
ISS, while having an account for about two months somehow entered a voluntary IB. This is what he is referring to. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- A voluntary interaction ban is not a rationale for refusing to play a part in a DR. Which is fine with me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
DRN
Thank you for the notification. I don't have any objections to collapsing discussions on conduct disputes, and I can attest that it's regularly done on DRN. DRN focuses on content disputes, disputes on conduct are better handled on other noticeboards. The redaction will likely prevent the participants from being further inflamed, encouraging them to focus their efforts on resolving the content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
bowl of strawberries
thank you. but there were sooooo many people who helped me through this. i thank all of you. bpolkAbearfellow (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse query
Hi. Re this issue at the Teahouse, I'll discuss it here as I didn't want to clog up their question forum + I know they aren't frightfully keen on non-hosts answering questions in the first place. Anyhow, it's OK to link to a fully copyright source as long as that source isn't itself a copyvio. However, from what I've seen, all of his videos are copyvios, using copyright tracks from other artists, clips from copyright films, television shows, professional music videos etc. with no evidence of permission. We shouldn't be linking to them at all. I'm also pretty sure that the user in question has two accounts [1] [2]. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Holy cow, I had no idea they discouraged responses by non-hosts. I'll either have to sign up, or cut back. On the merits, I posted at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Linking_to_fair_use_mashup.3F. While those videos clearly use material subject to copyright, they may qualify as fair use. See this for example.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- They've got a bit better about it now that the pilot phase is over. Back then, anyone who answered and wasn't a host got a "Thanks but no thanks" message. Now, outsiders are sort of OK, but they're supposed to do it the "Teahouse way", i.e. start each response with "Hi" and leave one of these on the talk page of the person who asked the question each time you respond to them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, I've tried to follow the model answer, but didn't know about the template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- They've got a bit better about it now that the pilot phase is over. Back then, anyone who answered and wasn't a host got a "Thanks but no thanks" message. Now, outsiders are sort of OK, but they're supposed to do it the "Teahouse way", i.e. start each response with "Hi" and leave one of these on the talk page of the person who asked the question each time you respond to them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there any chance that there are some unrelated emails for the Mouawad series of images covered in this ticket that didn't get merged in with this one? I'm not seeing where they explicitly stated a free and usable license for them. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- In the middle of something, will check later this afternoon.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- No rush. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, see 2012040410009347 I guess I should merge the two groups.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Merged. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Luba Mason entry deleted June 2011 (A7)
The entry on Luba Mason that you deleted in June 2011 was not created by me, and may have had little information. I believe she would be sufficiently 'noteworthy' with Broadway credits for decades, as well as tv roles, and 2 cds also to her credit. If you do a search on Wikipedia for her name, you will find many entries referencing her work. I would like to post a complete bio and artist credits for her, can I recreate this page? I don't know how else to ask this question. Thank you! Weinwalk (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)weinwalk
- You are free to recreate an article about her. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll do that. A question - if Luba gives me her press release bio which is also on her web page, is that copyright infringement, or fair use? I assume the format would have to be adapted, but would the text be ok? Weinwalk (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)weinwalk
- In general, no, not OK. Some people assume that because a press release is intended to be spread as widely as possible, it not under copyright, but in general it is. Unless it has been licensed appropriately (which is rare), not only can you not use the text as is, you cannot closely paraphrase it. You can reference it, and you can use facts from it, but the bio should be written from scratch, ideally using multiple sources.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Morbus (Video Game) Deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbus_(Video_Game) Remscar The information that was on the Morbus wikipedia article was not infringing upon copyrighted data from ModDB. The information that was written on ModDB is from morbus.remscar.com the games official website. The information was also originally authored by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.153.129 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- The only way to use copyrighted text, even if written by you, is to arrange for permission. You were given the link on your talk page, I'll repeat it here: Donating copyrighted materials--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
thanks, Theopolisme 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of page history with copyvio
Hi, you deleted a restored article while I was working on it; see Special:Undelete/Life_Goes_On_(2009_film). As I understand WP:COPYVIO, there is no need to delete page history that was illegal; it is sufficent to replace it with legal text. Have I misunderstood the rules? Would you have left it if I had posted {{Under construction}} on the restored page, replacing the speedy-deletion request, before I started detailed editing?
Now that the page is satisfactory, may I restore the page history? It would be appropriate to record the original contributor for the cast list. RSVP here. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is acceptable, although this is a large place, and it is conceivable someone else thinks so. In general, material in violation of copyright is not acceptable, not in article space, and not in user space. There may have been a time when it was standard to userfy such an article, on the assumption that it would be quickly fixed, but that is no longer the acceptable practice. In fact, even when material subject to copyright have been completely eliminated, it may remain in the article history, and we are increasingly using revdel to remove prior versions. Given this, it no longer makes sense to userfy material that has been deleted due to copyright issues.
- The under construction tag would not have helped. That tag would be an alter if some references were malformed, or tables were being designed, as a signal to a reviewer that some editing issues are likely to be fixed soon (ideally minutes or hours, but not days).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was puzzled by your statement As I understand WP:COPYVIO, there is no need to delete page history that was illegal; it is sufficient to replace it with legal text.. I think that is coming from This will give interested contributors a week to verify permission for the text or propose a rewrite. If so, the time allowance is for situation where there appears to be a problem, but there is some question. Note that it follows If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply.... In my opinion, the problem in Life Goes On (2009 film) was unambiguous, so it qualified for speedy deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring not to that passage, but to the following:
- If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. This does not imply any need for revdel.
- If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. Your interpretation seems to be that even if an editor is able to re-write the page from scratch, the page history to date must be deleted.
- If you are confident of your interpretation, please revise the page WP:COPYVIO accordingly, or at least propose it on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I may not be following. The first of the two points covers a situation where an article was acceptable at some time, but someone has added copyvio material in a later version. If one can remove the material, it can be done, or it not, one can revert to an earlier version. That does not apply to Life Goes On (2009 film), as the problem existed in all versions.
- So the second condition applies, If there is no such older version...'. In that case, the page will normally need to be deleted. Which I did. The only thing missing is the more current procedure of revdeling if a revert or edit of copyvio material is used. I will make that suggestion. However, I'm not yet convinced we are on the same page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring not to that passage, but to the following:
I'm in discussion with our resident copyright expert on whether and how to change the policy wording. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. In case my points are worth explaining another way:
- In the first bullet above, the proc allows reversion to a previous good version, and does not mention any need to revdel the COPYVIO versions.
- In the second one, the proc currently allows an alternative option of a full rewrite, again implying that (provided that is done) then the copyvio versions could then remain in history. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your follow up clarification. I don't know whether you had a chance to follow my conversation with MRG, but it was enlightening to me, as it cleared up a misconception I had. I knew it was legally problematic to have copyvios visible, but I thought it was also problematic to haven them even in history. That turns out not to be the case (caveat, WP:IANAL, and I am not qualified to give legal advice) and we revdel copyvios in history because it helps prevent the possibility of some editor mistakenly reverting to a copyvio. This is not a major concern if the article is in decent shape, but has a snippet of copyvio material somewhere in the history, but it is more of a potential problem if the removal of copyvio material takes a large article down to a stub - some overzealous editor might see a good-looking version in history and mistakenly think that the "good material" removal was vandalism. Better to revdel and remove the possibility.
- Revdel is a relatively recent tool, and the Copyvio policy page was written long before it existed. Yes, when the tool came into being, we should have identified all places that should mention it, but there's a lot of things we should do. Now that I have a better understanding of the rationale and history, I'll propose some new wording.
- On the second point, I see your point, and agree the current wording needs some tweaking. I'll try to address that as well. I do have too many irons in the fire, and I see several hundred unprocessed OTRS requests, so I won't promise the wording change will happen right away, but I'll try to get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked up your conversation now, thanks. It looks as if it would be permissible to restore the deleted history of Life Goes On (2009 film) after all. IMHO this would be desirable as user:AtreyaRC (talk) currently has no visible contributions. I'd like to send them an email to say their article has been rescued, to encourage them to contribute again, but it would be more encouraging if their past contributions were still traceable. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I have now done that. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very nicely done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers! I'll unwatch your page now, and won't remind you about the copyvio process, but leave it in your hands. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't finished that, but I do have it on my to-do list, so I will get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers! I'll unwatch your page now, and won't remind you about the copyvio process, but leave it in your hands. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very nicely done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I have now done that. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked up your conversation now, thanks. It looks as if it would be permissible to restore the deleted history of Life Goes On (2009 film) after all. IMHO this would be desirable as user:AtreyaRC (talk) currently has no visible contributions. I'd like to send them an email to say their article has been rescued, to encourage them to contribute again, but it would be more encouraging if their past contributions were still traceable. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Image search issue
hi Sphilbrick - I replied to you on my user talk page. Being new at this, I'm not sure of the protocol for letting people know. I also added some new info to the Image search topic at the Help desk. Check it out if you can. Best... 3dimen (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Image protocol question
You must have asked the wrong user, since I'm not an image expert. If I understand rightly, NFCR is for situations when nonfree content is being used or considered, and someone wants an opinion about whether that use be fair; it doesn't look like a deletion page, although of course deletion may result from a discussion that concludes that a use is unfair. FFD is for all types of files that need to be deleted; if you have a non-copyright reason for deleting an image, it almost certainly will need to go to FFD, because the non-copyright reasons for speedy deletion of images are rather few. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you aren't an expert, but you are fooling me:) Thanks, that is helpful. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's correct: WP:NFCR is used if you believe that an image fails the WP:NFCC policy, whereas WP:FFD is used if an image should be deleted for any reason. If an image fails WP:NFCC, it should often be deleted, so the two discussion boards partially overlap. WP:NFCR tends to be used mostly for images which pass WP:NFCC in some articles but fail it in some other articles (and thus can't be deleted), but the choice of discussion board also depends on the nominator. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was worried that there might be some definitive distinction, but in the case of these images, they might well end up needing deletion, so I think they are in the right place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's correct: WP:NFCR is used if you believe that an image fails the WP:NFCC policy, whereas WP:FFD is used if an image should be deleted for any reason. If an image fails WP:NFCC, it should often be deleted, so the two discussion boards partially overlap. WP:NFCR tends to be used mostly for images which pass WP:NFCC in some articles but fail it in some other articles (and thus can't be deleted), but the choice of discussion board also depends on the nominator. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard
U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC) |
Talkback 3dimen
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
First time, hope this is correct usage. 3dimen (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Requesting permission to print a photo
Hello Sphilbrick—
I apologize if this isn't the most efficient way to reach you, but I was having trouble finding an alternative. I work for the Appraisal Institute, an Illinois Not-for-Profit. We educate current and aspiring appraisers in the methods, techniques, standards, and ethics of real estate appraisal. Among the variety of materials we publish is the Appraisal Journal, a quarterly peer-reviewed journal focusing on particular property types and their appraisal challenges. For the Fall 2012 issue, we are running a feature on accessory dwelling units, and I found a photo of the Simsbury Historical Society carriage house that would be an excellent example to show our readers.
The Appraisal Journal has a circulation of nearly 20,000 appraisers and potential appraisers across the United States. Your photo will appear on the cover of the Fall 2012 issue exactly as it does in the original (except for resizing). I see that the photo is free to be licensed under the Creative Commons license, but I would be happy to give you specific photo credit, if you could let me know what language to include in the credit. I will also send you a PDF of the cover once it is complete and a printed copy of the Appraisal Journal if you would like.
Please send me an e-mail at
<redact>
to finalize any details or if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.208.196.2 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. Yes, you can use it, although you don't need my permission. The most common route for permission requests is through OTRS (don't worry, if you don't know what that is). It is common enough that there is a canned answer, which I will reproduce below.
In principle all Wikipedia text is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and can be used free of charge for any purpose. A specific permission for use is not necessary, as long as the license conditions are observed. Some text is also available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).
Images are identified as being subject to any of several licenses. Therefore it is advisable to check the image information page for the source and/or licensing information. Clicking on the image will lead you to the image information page. Most images are usually free to use as long as you give the proper credits and follow the terms of the license indicated on the image description page.
For more information please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
If the licensing conditions of one image do not suit you, it may be possible to contact the author of that image for alternate conditions. See in the description page if the author's name is present.
Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteers answering on this channel provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses.
- I have couple meetings coming up shortly, but I will respond to the email address later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Redact what?
The comment he objected to was an offhand slang term for dying, "kicked it", which he claims indicates a personal bias towards Oxford. (For the record I have a personal bias against aristocracy in general, but no more so for Oxford than for any other member of that blood-sucking class of useless twits.) The blasphemous expletive, which I used to indicate the ridiculousness of his accusation, is irrelevant to the issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Kicked it" was rude, but I'd never ask anyone to redact that. Any editor who can't deal with that isn't going to make it here. OTOH, Jesus fucking Christ" did nothing to advance the argument,and gives the editor a thin reed to argue that conduct is an issue. You could remove that reed easily.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm worried my point may not be clear, so I'll try again. If I thought the expression were a violation of policy, I would have redacted it myself. I don't think it is a violation of policy, but it clearly offended an editor. The editor in question is making a number of ridiculous arguments, and it is quite fair to characterize the arguments thusly. However, I fear that a general disdain for the editors arguments is manifesting itself as a disdain for the editor. That line should not be crossed. It was crossed with the labeling of the section. I think carving off the section was a brilliant idea; while the choice of section name was less brilliant. I would find it easier to respond to the editor if I could say" all your arguments are ridiculous, knock it off" but you muddy the waters. I changed the section name, but I won't redact the expletive. I hoped you would.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really fail to see how "kicked it" could be construed as an insult, or even rude, except to someone who considers Oxford an object of religious devotion. It's consistent with a conversational style. As to the other, I'll change it to "H". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank-you. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really fail to see how "kicked it" could be construed as an insult, or even rude, except to someone who considers Oxford an object of religious devotion. It's consistent with a conversational style. As to the other, I'll change it to "H". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Edward de Vere
Thank you very much again, User SPhilbrick. I really appreciate your kind advice concerning Tom Reedy, and I have already followed it. Please have a look on my recent editings on the Talk page of "Edward de Vere" and on WP:ANI. Best wishes, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank-you. I'm well aware that people can hold strong opinions, and that can spiral, especially if strong language is used. I appreciate that two of the involved parties have both agreed to cut back some of the stronger language. I don;t pretend for a second that everything is resolved, but perhaps now we can settle down to a reasonable debate.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
Your welcome. I was actually planning on promoting the nomination to the set of hooks I just finished building, but reconsidered after I noticed what a nice looking article you had put together and that the article had an image with a free license. No promises that the hook will land in a lead slot, but at least it still has a chance.
For future reference, the easy way to add an image to a nomination after it is already created is to find another nomination with an image and copy the three line HTML block containing that nomination's image into your nomination (the <div> tag surrounding the image controls the image placement). Then all you need to do is update the image name and image description. --Allen3 talk 20:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. In fact, I was heading in that direction, looking for another example so I could
stealcopy, but something came up. I do understand that having an image doesn't guarantee it will be the DYK with an image, but at least it now has a shot.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Maclean game refuge
Just saw that you tracked down that article I pointed out - thanks! 198.228.201.159 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it was both interesting and helpful. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Marcel Leroux citation table
Thanx for your work on that citation table. It looks like a lot of work, even if done in Excel. I can't imagine that my clumsy cutting and pasting preserved tabs very well. --Africangenesis (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't too much work, but I feared that the original looked like a sea of text.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Me too, and made sure it was at the end. take care. --Africangenesis (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Tara VanDerveer
On 15 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tara VanDerveer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tara VanDerveer (pictured) had to take a one-year leave of absence from her position at Stanford to coach the 1996 U.S. Women's Olympic Basketball team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tara VanDerveer. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Tara VanDerveer DYK
The Running Man Barnstar | ||
Before you got to work, the article on a coach of the stature of VanDerveer was the next thing to a stub?? And now, the DYK aside, it's GA-level at least? Very well done. Ravenswing 02:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC) |
Yes very nice solid work on the article. --Erp (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you, very appreciated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Incivility
Me? Baiting? Are you serious?!?! I think you will find I did not instigate the "fuck off" comment. Malleus posted the first comment which was addressed to me. Malleus had little reason to join in yet he posted a arrogant comment. He then responded with an unnecessary use of profanity which should not be condoned on Wikipedia under any circumstances.
"Seems like you learned nothing from the pig's ear you made of that MediaCityUK article Stevo. And so far as the content of the Architecture article goes, this is the top, so behave yourself"
Explain to me how that belittling comment is not "baiting"? I think you really need to look at conversation again. And Smithers vs "fuck off" is no comparison. I said that because I felt Malleus had little reason to butt in with a arrogant and irritating comment. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the difference. The comment of Malleus, while strong, was a comment on content. Your response was not a comment on the article, but a shot at a contributor. I trust you are familiar with WP:NPA, where it says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Malleus's response, while strongly worded, wasn't a personal attack, but a strong version of "stop that". I agree with you that there is no comparison, but not in the way you think. Your response was a personal attack. His was not. I don't like his choice of words, either in the first comment or the second, but that's a personal taste, not a policy conclusion. Your response was a violation of policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus started it with a belittling designed to bait. I suppose you condone editors using profanity? How civil - it sets a great example. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stevo1000 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't condoned using profanity, so your supposition is not based upon anything I have posted. I've said, more than once, that I do not like it. However, I find it difficult to make a strong case against MF when you start it. His comment to you was a comment on an article. Acceptable. Your response was a comment on an editor. Not acceptable. You appear to have convinced yourself that MF started it. While he posted first to you, his post was within policy. You were the first to violate policy. That distinction is critical. If you choose to respond again, please address that point, as it is the crux of the matter.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Malleus started it with a belittling designed to bait. I suppose you condone editors using profanity? How civil - it sets a great example. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stevo1000 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously there is a difference of opinion. I think you're wrong for letting another editor use profanity and you think I'm wrong for saying Smithers. Malleus has told editors to fuck off before and driven other editors to the point of irritation. Any editor could have 1 edit, 100 edits, 1000 edits, 10000 edits or 100000+ edits - but that does not give him/her permission to use profanity against other editors. Simply saying an abrasive editor is still on here because he/she has contributed much to Wikipedia does not excuse such behaviour. To me it seems a rule for one, a rule for another it seems. My concern is that you condone that sort of behaviour which is quite worrying considering you're an admin. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Stevo, there is no "rule" against using profanity. You can look at the current civility RfC for a confirmation of that. There are rules against things like copyright violations and personal attacks, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously there is a difference of opinion. I think you're wrong for letting another editor use profanity and you think I'm wrong for saying Smithers. Malleus has told editors to fuck off before and driven other editors to the point of irritation. Any editor could have 1 edit, 100 edits, 1000 edits, 10000 edits or 100000+ edits - but that does not give him/her permission to use profanity against other editors. Simply saying an abrasive editor is still on here because he/she has contributed much to Wikipedia does not excuse such behaviour. To me it seems a rule for one, a rule for another it seems. My concern is that you condone that sort of behaviour which is quite worrying considering you're an admin. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, this is now twice you stated that I condone something. The first time with no evidence, the second time after I specifically said I did not. If you would like to make a point, you should try supporting it with evidence, if you have some, or stop saying it if it is false. Second, I specifically asked you to address the important distinction I made, you did not. I'm happy to have a discussion on this issue, but if you pointedly ignore my requests, then we aren't discussing. If you address either issue, I will respond, if you post without responding to either, I will remove as non-responsive. This is an important subject, and I would love to discuss it further, but I want to make progress, not simply read statements which ignore my polite requests. Just in case my earlier points weren't clear enough:
- Condone means to Approve or Accept. I don't approve. As for accept, it isn't against policy, so my only tool is to let him know I don't approve, which I have done.
- Malleus's less than ideal language was directed at Conduct, which is allowed. The first person to use language directed at an editor was you. Your edit violated policy, his did not. Please comment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You said truth (copyright violation - is not Internet Freedom)
Hello. You said truth - some time ago (I was wrong). We discussed topic: Internet Freedom (and I was sure - it is about copyright). This is about human rights mainly. I found this here: http://vk.com/wall54619837_1003 (the official group of the Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia). His website: http://ombudsmanrf.org - with link to this official group (what do you think on this issue)? - 2.92.30.38 (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC).
- I don't read Russian, and my tools for translation are not available at the moment. Will look when I return home.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okey. And bot: http://translate.google.com (Google). Thank you! - 2.92.30.38 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC).
- Yes, I've used that a lot, but I prefer the automatic translation in Chrome, not available to me now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I see that someone has nominated Jimbo for the Hall of Shame, with no explanation of the reasons. Please do not bother providing reasons, I don't have the time or interest.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I've used that a lot, but I prefer the automatic translation in Chrome, not available to me now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. You right in some sense. Admin of Russian Wikipedia: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Участник:Carn (has the big blame). He is already in the Hall (as and the Founder). Only the personal revenge is the reason of the bad situation. Carn quarreled with webmaster Archive. Till this Carn even suggested to him write the whole article about the great-grandson of the baron (Sergey Bulichyov - Сергей Булычёв). Info on the great-grandson was added in the section about famous people Dorogobug (town-motherland of Sergey). This was editing of Carn personally. Daughter of the professor Яков Юдельсон wished restore contribution of father - old man got award: http://www.rg.ru/2006/01/17/nagradi-dok.html (from the president of Russia). But his Honer must be restored (very badly - create damage for such people). I have no relation to the Hall (but - I say: you can save Honor of Jimbo Wales). How? Restore topic about Sergey Bulichyov (you can make roll back of all changes of Carn on this issue - including). And Jimbo will leave bloody murderer in the Hall of Shame. Will be free of the such "Honor". If you are agree - I can give you the simple scheme: to implement the great support in relation of the Founder of Wikipedia (several of the important and logical links mainly) ????? If you do not want help to him - is your right. In the social network Vkontakte everyone knows about different events. Jimbo already in the official group of the UN there: http://vk.com/unwebsiteinrussian - http://vk.com/wall-40572745_208 (Vkontakte almost as like Facebook). Facebook is the prototype of Vkontakte (Russian Facebook). Nearly milliard of users. And please forbid block me for every such bad human (otherwise - we can not to do something useful for Jimbo - by clear reason: must be the dialogue for interaction). Thank you! - 89.179.94.196 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
- Hello. About help for: the Creator of Wikipedia and the Honoured doctor Яков Борисович Юдельсон (please click this link). Thanks ! http://translate.google.com - 95.29.18.185 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC).
- Carn added: Bulichyov (+) is famous human at Дорогобуж (great-grandson of baron Ungern). http://translate.google.com - 2.93.98.175 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC).
- Contribution of the professor Юдельсон was approved on best level. The most competent administrator of Ru Wikipedia - Yaroslav Blanter (made the such approval): Версия 09:54, 6 марта 2011 and Версия 08:10, 7 марта 2011. Currently, he is not user of Wikipedia, but this fact has no meaning, because the competence is actual in any time. Personal page of the former administrator - not exists in Russian Wikipedia by him own will (reasons: О5 and У1. Decision of Yaroslav in many times more dear, than opinion of any admin in Russian Wikipedia. Someone have doubts in the competence of two professors (Yaroslav Blanter and Яков Юдельсон) - very bad thing for reputation in any scope. Such people rarely make mistakes (they are very clever).
- Thus, the useful contribution of the professor needs to be restored: this section must be displayed so. Permission to use the photos can be found in the independent source (big number of photos - including). This source can be used as the additional reference (<r e f>). Here you can see how Carn suggests to create the whole article (the great-grandson of the baron Ungern is the hero of this article). This is displayed as: Булычёв, Сергей Викторович. Please note: Nobody will suggest for Carn correct the mistakes (because he already got needed notification earlier). Alex Spade also got the notification (and RU Wikipedia got the notification). What is means? They must implement command of administrator of English Wikipedia. Or: English administrator can restore contribution of the professor personaly. Without this - nothing will be changed else millions years. I got the instruction - to focus attention on these details. My right to act on behalf - is placed on the page of the community: "Medicine: violation of a Law (Медицина: нарушение Закона)". See there my IP address: (2.93.98.175). Thank you! http://translate.google.com - 2.93.98.175 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC).
Oppose
Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
typo fix
Please review [3] -- think you meant MF. Nobody Ent 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. Weird, as the "C" isn't close to the "M". Not sure how it happened.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Tricia McLaughlin
Hi, this was an article you deleted in December 2011. I feel like the move was unduly harsh, that the copyright-violating link could've been taken out and the article remain. Will you let me restart it without the Vimeo link?--Aichikawa (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please feel free to start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks----Aichikawa (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48
Your speedy deletion
You did not respond to my discussion on the talk page, pointing you and others to the discussion of the similar category.
Why did you label it an "attack page". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Let's try acting like grownups.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not the little boy throwing the board off the table....
- Please respond on the talk page of the category, without the uncivilities: Again, why did you cut short the community discussion? The parallel category is under discussion and the characterization of it as an attack page has been disputed. Nominate it for a proper deletion, if you want, but respect the community discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not interested. If you recreate, I won't touch it again, but I don't see this as productive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Many people don't like the populated category, but even ScottMacDonald (finally) has agreed to respect the community discussion. I would ask that you let that discussion run its course, as a courtesy. Of course, you or another editor is welcome to nominate it for a standard deletion (not speedy, given that many experienced administrators have disputed the speedy deletion as improper).
- My question is: If you regard that phrase as being an attack, why haven't you sanctioned/warned/complained to AGK---its author? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good grief, this is not worth the time. When I am working on potential speedies, I have a routine, developed form hundreds of examples. In almost all cases, I make sure the author has been notified, as I think it is quite rude to delete something and not let the author know. On many occasions, I have declined to carry out a CSD, and asked the editor proposing it to make sure they notify the author. Early on, I did this for all cases, but I quickly learned that it is a waste of time with attack pages. I've probably deleted a 100. In every single other case, it was a drive by, and a notification, or warning, is a waste of time. So now, when I see a possible attack page, identified in red, for especially speedy action, I read it to ensure that there is something negative (which there was) and delete it and move on.
- So I missed one. I'm happy with my weighing of type I and Type II errors I'm not about to spend five minutes research on the next 100 attack pages in case it came form a regular and some tut-tutting is warranted. In the meantime, the OTRS request for permissions queue has reached 474 and I have better things to do with my time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, which does explain things. Keep up the good work. (I should have overlooked the "behave like adults" edit description, and not replied in kind---or unkind.) Regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for the snippy reply. I shouldn't be under stress, as I am on vacation, but I seem to have a bigger pile of things to do than when I'm working.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, which does explain things. Keep up the good work. (I should have overlooked the "behave like adults" edit description, and not replied in kind---or unkind.) Regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Not interested. If you recreate, I won't touch it again, but I don't see this as productive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Women's basketball
Articles does need a bit of a structure and a lot of improvement. There were some major problems at one point with the article because it seemed to only acknowledge that women in the United States played basketball. I tried to neutralise that some. If I was doing a major improvement effort on the article, I'd honestly start by finding sources and fully citing what I can, blow out as much of the article as possible with full citations. Once that blowout was done, then see where daughter articles can be copied and what completed sections could be rewritten a bit and then put into another article like history of basketball. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- My knowledge tends to US centric with a fair bit of Australian knowledhe thrown in. I think my book collection probably covers England to a degree. If I was focusing on the broad rules, I would go with the FIBA rules for international competition as the international default. this explains some of the differences. FIBA rules are often used as the international standard for domestic competitions for nation's with Olympic aspirations as you want your women consistently playing them so there is no whip saw confusion between one rule set and another. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport might be a place to start looking for people. The basketball project doesn't tend to get as much assistance is it could, but there are some eyes on the women's side.--LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)