User talk:Sphilbrick: Difference between revisions

CSD nomination of Harshhussey articles

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

Pierre de Coubertin & Luz Long

Yes, it's been a while since I made those edits. I'll try to wrack my brain for the details. :-)

I first read about Lutz Long awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal in a book about Olympic spirit and sportsmanship whose title I don't recall (it also included information of such athletes as Derek Redmond and Shun Fujimoto) back in 2001 or so, and when I came upon the article on Wikipedia, I drew upon what I remembered reading to expand his article.

My edits that he was awarded the medal posthumously comes from deduction and logic: The Pierre de Coubertin medal was introduced in 1964, but Long died in 1943, so he could only have been awarded the medal posthumously.

At the time, I didn't have sources that Lutz Long was actually awarded the medal, but IIRC, the existing Wikipedia articles already stated this. There are several sourced publications out there that state his award. Doing a search, I found some online sources, including [1] and some Google Books search results: [2], [3]

Hope this helps, and I'm glad to see a relative of Luz Long taking an interest in articles to which I provided a small contribution. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I will pass it along to the person working on the book. I had passed on the Scrivener article, but the others are new to me. They have been unable to confirm it, and, not surprisingly, some of the more recent sources that state it picked it up from Wikipedia, so I'll check out to see if any predate us.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review

Many thanks for taking the plunge (and the time) on this. Iztwoz (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Really sorry not to have responded to any comments - I had been waiting for some sort of alert from one of my 'watched pages'. So - I have only just looked at page and will start to address issues raised today. Thank you Iztwoz (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to say many thanks for your input on this. I added a little more from the article you noted - it's all such clever stuff this here body of ours! Iztwoz (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the pass. The icon is up! Hope you have the confidence to take on some more reviews now - Iztwoz (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

An annoying request for you

Since you just deleted the userpage I moved it from, can you delete this revision and the (18) older ones on 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France)? I forgot I had used that userpage before drafting the article; it'll confuse anyone looking through the history of the new article, and I don't need to save any of those old edits. Much appreciated, —innotata 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying but I'm missing something--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —innotata 01:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User Lactasamir

I see you posted to User talk:Lactasamir as did I in the past. However, I think that this is a hopeless case. I'm about to raise a CCI after finding him adding more copyvio today. He also has ignored requests to cite properly and he seems to have no judgement about sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm in day one of 2 all day meetings, so will check back Thursday.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Danube Valley Cultures

Hello friend :) it seems that I need to work of my copyright abilities I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone by using copyrighted material. History is my passion and sometimes I lose track of all the things I want to share with Wikipedia. I now understand how important the copyright rules are, and I would do anything to make Wikipedia satisfied. I am pleading for the return of the article Danube Valley Cultures. Is there any way I could edit the deleted article. And make everything wrong right again. My greatest wish is to get a second change to edit what has been deleted and to make sure anything copyrighted are treated the right way. The article about the Danube Valley Cultures are a very important piece of tool to understanding the entire Neolithic Balkans.Lactasamir (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see response to message above this one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) I can promise you that from now on there will be no more copyvio or bare urls. From now on i will make sure to follow Wikipedia rules. I know this is not the place to bring it up, but i need so make it clear that i am disabled and therefore i have difficulties when it comes to do the same thing as "normal" people. Editing on Wikipedia is one of the things that brings joy to my life, i feel that i can contribute i some small way to the society. So when i edit in Wikipedia it takes a lot of strenght and therefore i have a tendency to copyvio or make bare urls because i will take me very long time to write the edit i my own words. But from now on i will only make edits with the help from one of my family members so it will be done correctly. Have a nice day. :) Lactasamir (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, i promise to go back in my edits and remove bare urls and make sure that the correct information about the linked page. This will take some time but slowly i will make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactasamir (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams

Hi Sphilbrick, I came across the above article whilst perusing the DYK talk page. I haven't done a full review but have noted both at the DYK template and at Talk:USA Women's 3x3 Teams that I think there be an issue or three with the article name. Of course I could be talking absolute nonsense but you may want to take a look at it. Cheers - Basement12 (T.C) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Only The Young Die Good (film)

Hi Sphilbrick, just got you message about the page Only The Young Die Good. I'm very new to Wikipedia and so I make a lot of mistakes. I don't even know if this is the right page to contact you on. I have updated the page on reading your message and I think I might have resolved the issues. If not please let me know and what I'm still doing wrong. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomo_557755

I responded at your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I just finished updated the page Only The Young Die Good and hopefully I've managed to fix the plot synopsis wording. Let me know if it needs anymore changes. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomo_557755 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomo 557755 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I would change 2 days to two days, but that's your call.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sub category deletion

You deleted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page. However, CSD G8 does not appear to have been deprecated. Was it perhaps an inadvertent deletion on your part? Safiel (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, too. You didn't give a reason for the deletion, either. I've restored it based on the assumption it was accidental.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an accident. I'm trying to reconstruct what happened, and do not see how it could have happened, although, of course it did. Wait, maybe I do have a hint, although I don't get why it should have happened. I deleted quite a number of talk pages, each depended on a non-existent page. Then I turned my attention to the subcategories, and saw that there were five. I deleted each of the five, one of which was Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page. However, that category shouldn't be showing up in that list, should it? That cat is often empty, and I've never seen it in there before. Whenever I delete an empty cat, I confirm it is empty, and I watch for the message indicating cats that can be empty. I don't recall seeing that message. So it still adds up to my mistake, but I wish I knew exactly what happened.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Safiel:@Bbb23:OK, not that you care about the gory details, but I think I figured it out. I had the category open as a tab, as I had just been working in it and cleaning it out. I finished emptying it, but then did not close it. I then opened four tabs with empty subcats. I walked through each one of them, confirming they were empty and deleted them, but I still had the subcat in question open, so I mechanically verified that it was empty, missed the message and deleted it as one of five, when I meant to deleted four. I'm glad to have figured it out, because I can now change my process. When I empty a subcat, I should make sure to finish by closing the subcat, not leaving it open.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil, I'm glad you figured it out, but only for your own peace of mind. These things happen, and it was easily fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and more anecdotal evidence to justify our insistence on AGF:) Seriously, while I realize I've spent more time worrying about it than it took to fix it, I do a lot of deletions, and I have a process. If that process was flawed (which it was), it could happened again. Now that I've figured out what happened (which arose due a small change in my usual process) I can modify it. No promises I won;t make another mistake, but I'll try to keep the number low :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I figured it was inadvertent. I know how easy it is to make a tiny mistake and screw half a page up. :) Safiel (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine

Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine was emptied by the nominator for deletion and you deleted it. Please restore it so an adequate discussion can be held on the topic. I am working to reverse the emptying.--TM 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article is back without improvement

Can you help advise at 5 day old World Spiritual Foundation. Saw your name here. Thank you. Tajudin69 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tajudin69: I'm not catching the nature of your request. I originally deleted it because it qualified as a G13. It doesn't now. If you are suggesting it should be deleted, it has to go through the normal process. If you are asking something else, please let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do a formal deletion request. Tajudin69 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:All disputed non-free Wikipedia files

Why did you delete this category? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not paying proper attention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Dematerialization

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

Eric Corbett

I agree with your comment that the poster wasn't clear as to what he wanted, and it wasn't directly relevant to Carol and Sitush. I would have been ready to propose a ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk (WP and WT) space as an alternative to a site ban. However, the topic has now been closed, and will be re-opened sometime. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it was only closed as a non admin closing because it seemed unrelated and not actionable and the original collapse made statements that were not accurate. No one is truly unsanctionable. If an admin feels strongly about re-opening that, I will not object, but...I caution against it at the moment or until such time that clear and unquestionable actions have been made. Many of the reasons why things don't stick to Eric is simply because editors tend to bring more heat than light to these discussions. Sometimes...Eric's reputation proceeds him in very unflattering ways...but the issue must be violations that are clear, well stated and unquestionable. He tends to understand the difference between being unkind and crossing lines that become sanctionable.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Future of Life Institute

Ignore this, just seen Draft:Future of Life Institute and now I understand. Thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That was easy :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Moriah Jefferson

can you put a picture of her cause I just started they said I couldn't do it. iuuxx3 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ican. I can't do it right away, because I'm getting ready for a meeting with Jimbo, so I'll have to check in tomoorrow. Are you talking about a photo you have, or one from somewhere else?S Philbrick(Talk) 20:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

one from elsewhere I show you iuuxx3 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) http://www.thehour.com/sports/parade-honors-national-champion-uconn-women/article_c2d42e2f-dcba-5907-98ea-8e1c9cd601c6.html?mode=image&photo=4

That's a nice photo. That photo is copyrighted, either to Jessica Hill, or to the newspaper. Let me look to see if I have a free photo. If not, or even if I do and that one is better, we would need a permission statement from the copyright holder. Would you like to try arranging that? I can help, if you want, or I can try myself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

you can try yourself i don't how to do it. iuuxx3 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for USA Women's 3x3 Teams

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action in RfA

[4] There is a time and place for affirmative action. WP's RFA process is one of those places. I think the amount of opposition to the idea is clearly one of the reasons why women's participation is so low. Cla68 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68: Absolutely not. It is an insult to women to suggest that they need to get preferential treatment in RfA.

It there were evidence that women candidates were failing more often than men, it would be reason to look to see if there were institutional bias, or other issues which require remedies. I don't even think that is the case. It is quite well-know that there are fewer women editing Wikipedia than men, by a wide margin, and more need to be done to change that (I'm doing my small part by contributing to Gender_gap_strategy/Toolkits and creating User:Sphilbrick/Gender_Gap_resources). There are plenty of areas that need attention, but preferential treatment of female RfA candidates isn't one of them. Even if someone identifies an RfA issue involving women, changing the pass ratio is a bandaid, not a remedy. We need real remedies, not pretenses that we are doing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OTRS at ANI

If you feel a dead horse is being beat, drop me a note on my talk page. If you feel my five point summary warrants address please post to ANI. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to give this the time it deserves, sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my recent postings at PUMP, VRT and FTNB regarding my belief there is a need for disclosure of COI on OTRS team edits suggested by secret COI correspondence and comment as you see fit. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

following up re: pages created by banned users

Hi there,

I'm hoping to follow up on the thread started at Chinatown, Providence and then carried on at what is now User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_48#Chinatown.2C_Providence (and elsewhere). Regretfully, life called and I went on a wikibreak shortly thereafter, so I was wondering if it went anywhere? Not necessarily concerned about that Chinatown article in particular -- more the policy implications. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I started a discussion at this page

You contributed early, but may not have seen the whole thread. In fact, I hadn't seen some comments until now. I didn't see clear direction, but I confess I scanned it quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Research assistance available

The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason for my original request may not pan out the way I had hoped, but I'll keep this on mind.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TBW Hor noTag low res.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TBW Hor noTag low res.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that a spammy article was deleted. I uploaded it per request, no problems if it gores away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Yberri de Negri

Just letting you know I've restored it, and corrected the target. (I was about to correct it when you zapped it...) The creator put the redir title in instead of the target. Easily done. 8-) Peridon (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: - just to be clear, do I need to do anything, or was this just a heads up?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I've done it. Just letting you know in case you knew something about it that I didn't, which could mean it shouldn't have been done. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine, no issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Revdel

Hi Sphilbrick! Can you do a quick revdel for copyright over at GQ Thailand? Revs are listed in the tag, which IPs are edit warring over, so best to remove the irritant. Thanks! Crow^Caw 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Crow: Yes, am I reading correctly it needs rev del back to intitial edit?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was copied straight from the company's press release. Crow^Caw 21:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Crow:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you deleted that userspace draft...

Could you check out this one? User:Seth Fleming I tagged it for a U5 as it is just the user using it as a webhost, but it was declined by an administrator. I'd rather not sort out an entire MfD because one admin decided to be picky. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I left a message on the user's talk page frankly don't expect it to be fruitful but I think it is important to try. I added it to my watchlist but I confess I have too many things at my watch list. If we don't get the response we want soon I'll go ahead delete but you might have to poke me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor has edited, and while they may not know how to check their talk page, maybe the missing page will alert them that something is wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Available to review a draft?

Hello Sphilbrick, I hope is well with you. Although we've met briefly in person and talked offline just a bit, I wonder if you would be willing (or have time) to look at a draft proposal for the Heritage Action article?

The new draft is an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic, improve the sourcing and give a better overview of the organization. This was prepared under my supervision and originally proposed by a colleague, User:Morzabeth, who had struggled to get editors to stay around to discuss after initial feedback. Since this has stalled, I'm stepping in to assist.

You can find the proposed replacement draft in Morzabeth's user space; as Morzabeth explained in her initial request (which is still open) the current version of the article has many shortcomings, which we have aimed to fix. Our goal is a neutral accounting of the organization, she has made updates based on feedback received so far, and and I'm certainly open to making more changes as needed.

If you're interested, so far, the discussion has mainly taken place on the Heritage Action Talk page, following the message linked immediately above. I'd very much appreciate if you could take a fresh look at the draft and see what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should be able to take a look sometime today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's terrific. Let me know what you think once you've had a chance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@WWB Too: I started, but please see User_talk:Morzabeth#Heritage_Action--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, hadn't seen that until now. Yes, I've been thinking about taking this section-by-section, though it's a challenge: our structure doesn't quite match the existing article. I'll give this some thought over the weekend, and I'll keep you posted. Thanks for having a look, and I'd appreciate you participating once I figure out the best way forward. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong page....

I strongly suspect you want User talk:William M. Connolley here. As far as I know, William is not watching his biography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm That's embarrassing. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It has happened before ;) With regard to the yellow pig eyelashes, have you ever sung the mathematical 'international' version of Im schwarzen Walfisch zu Askalon? Serten (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say no, but sounds like something I should do. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As a mineralogist, I am not allowed to do so, but Guano#In_popular_culture and Ichthyosaurus#Poem goes well. 'The end of the world is coming, Things can't go on long in this way; The Climate formation can't stand it, Is all that I've got to say!' ;) Serten (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An aside regarding the NDGT article

I noticed your oppose of the alternate text proposal at the NDGT article. While I share your concerns, I wanted to express to you semi-privately why I think the compromise text should be supported. For me, it's a "split the baby" solution. It is not ideal, for the reasons you stated in your oppose. But it is far better than not mentioning it at all. And that text provides a "base" of sorts that mitigates against spurious attempts to remove any mention of it for "BLP" reasons. (The current state of BLPN is a concern to me as well, as I see editors crying "BLP" to simply keep out information they don't like, but that's for another discussion.) And as Wikipedia is dynamic and not static, the wording of the text can be tweaked and expanded as necessary, as consensus changes. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It is an interesting point, but I'm not yet persuaded. I'm fully aware that I won't get the wording I want (close to Collect's although that is too wordy for me). However, while being willing to compromise on the precise wording, length, number and identification of sources, I don't think accepting something which isn't close to capturing the key points is useful. I catch your point that it keeps something in the article, which might be improved over time, but that point cuts both ways. I could easily see an editor in the future, seeing a trivial comment about a misquote, tossing it as undue. How could one object?

As an aside, it is interesting that you referred to a "split the baby" solution. I urge you to read Judgment of Solomon. The message is not supportive of compromise. That strengthens my belief that we ought to do something that is right, or concede that Wikipedia is not up to the task.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking that through a bit, that was a poor wording choice on my part. I was just meaning that it was a solution that neither side was going to like, but that those who opposed even a mention THAT brief and bland would be exposed for their intransigencee to any compromise. But yeah, the Solomon reference wasn't ideal. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I know it wasn't the intention, but maybe the choice was apt:) I get that reasonable compromise means that both sides may not like the result, but there's a big difference between compromising on some of the aspects, as long as the fundamental point is retained. I think it is interesting that Tyson says the quote came from Genesis, when it really came from Isaiah, but that's not a key point, and I wouldn't go to the mat insisting that all the errors made by Tyson should be included. The year is a more important point, because claiming it happened right after 9/11 means the purported point about religious divisiveness is especially cogent. While I think that ought to be included, I can compromise for the sake of brevity and exclude the timing blunder. Tyson also got the quote wrong, which is not, as some claimed, attributable to being an off-the-cuff remark; Tyson made a point of consulting his notes before reciting the "quote" but even this is not worth fighting to include. So what if he got the quote a little wrong? Yes, people quoting others ought to get it right, especially when they claim to be quoting him, and I would include that if I got my druthers, but I can compromise on that point. By now, I hope you are wondering what I do consider key. The onlty thing of substance in the latter two proposal is the misquote, and I've said that is something I can give up. The problem is that the only thing in the proposals is a minor point rather than the substantive point. The substantive point is that a speaker, purporting to explain to an audience how many people get things wrong, tells an anecdote whose point is that President Bush was trying to divide we from they (Muslims) and he was doing no such thing. It is a gratuitous slam, accusing someone of religious divisiveness, who did nothing of the kind. That's the key point, and neither of the last two proposals even hints at that point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is true, and gives me some pause in supporting. I will have to think a bit more about it, before deciding whether to strike my support, but you do raise valid issues with the compromise texts. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you reached out to me. Sometimes, I think the glare of a public talk page makes it difficult for people to change their mind, so I am supportive of semi-private discussions to reach solutions. I realize that this page is as visible as any article talk page, but you know what I mean. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I attempt to keep an open mind, and your opposition there was soundly-reasoned, but I felt was missing the context of getting some mention of the incident in the article and building a better mention after that happened. After reading your further reasoning, though, I can see very clearly why you ended up where you did. I'll revisit the discussion (hopefully) later this evening. Thank you for engaging--it's always nice to have a discussion where more light than heat is generated. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes

Sphilbrick, would you be willing to reconsider your opposition to the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my interjecting here, as I had a similar conversation with Sphilbrick above. I have to say, I have nearly been convinced that none of the options deserves support. The "attacked Tyson's character" thing is what's really putting it over the edge for me. It utterly shifts the weight from the Tyson to the people who uncovered what he did, which is just beyond the pale, as I think about it more. While I haven't struck my own support (yet), I am seriously considering doing so. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, LHM, but at least it acknowledges (a) Tyson's screw-up, (b) as confirmed by his apology. That's no small thing. If we get this done, it makes breaking the logjam at The Federalist article much easier, and there should be little argument about including at least one link to The Federalist from The Federalist article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

True. And what you write here and below are the main reasons I haven't, as yet, struck my support. But this is beyond "hold your nose and !vote for it", I think. It's more like "drink this water that's only slightly piss-y instead of the water that someone took a dump in." I find the "attacked Tyson's character" language that objectionable. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But I'm willing to swallow some shit to break the stranglehold of the "no way, no how" crowd that is determined to exercise this BLP-overstrech veto. There's more at stake than the exact wording. If four or five editors are permitted to effectively exercise a veto over factually correct, neutrally worded, reliably sourced text to achieve a partisan outcome, a very dangerous precedent will have been set for BLP policy in the future. Even folks like Jytdog are having doubts in quiet moments. Twelve months from now, the only thing anyone will remember is that the "quotegate" reference was inserted into the NDGT article, and the attempted BLP pretext veto was broken. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a close call. Tyson attacked Bush's character, over and over again, falsely. Some websites called him on it. The reporting got a bit hyperbolic, and that may be worth reporting, but to characterize it as an attack on Tyson's character is to miss the whole damn point. Do we characterize the Woodward and Bernstein reporting as a "newspaper attacking the character of Richard Nixon"? Of course the reporting raises questions about the character of Tyson/Nixon, but the story is the false accusation/cover-up of wrong doing. (For the lurkers who are fainting away, no I do not pretend that the Tyson incident is as serious as the Nixon incident - I'm exaggerating to make the point.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand your point, Sphilbrick. That being said, just as Bush was unfairly held up as a buffoon by Tyson, some of the attacks on Tyson were equally over the top. The Big Picture: If we get off the dime on the NDGT article, we can then shake something loose for The Federalist article that actually cites the key Sean Davis article and be done with this. Holding out for something you or I might draft is a simple formula for conceding the issue to the partisan stonewallers and, worse, concedes the policy ground on this ridiculous stretch of BLP to include WEIGHT and UNDUE. There's more at work here than the exact wording of a compromise. The real issue, for me anyway, is reeling in this power grab by exercising a veto for all BLP content based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Yes, it may be a distasteful compromise, but it moves the ball forward, and pushes back on the overstretch of BLP. Twelve months from now, no one will remember or care about the exact wording in the NDGT article, but the BLP veto-overstretch for partisan outcomes could last for a long damn time of we don't take it down a peg. If you can't support, I ask that you at least don't oppose, thereby reinforcing the "no way, no how" crowd. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit

Got it down to 16 in the queue. Most of the remaining either have an ongoing discussion or were posted by myself or another paid editing business and only a few are older than September. Also, I noticed a few other editors have started picking these up now and then. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, very impressive.

I haven't been pulling my weight there, but the OTRS permission queue is stuck north of 700 open requests, so I'm trying to help out there.

Do you know why other editors started picking some up? I wish it were because it is now in the admin dashboard, but that doesn't seem likely. It would be good to know what did work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: What is the status of RealNetworks and James T. Butts, Jr.. I see both marked done by you, but they are still in the list. Is there something yet to be done, or do they just need closing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The "done" icon is referring to completing the task associated with an editor's feedback. On RealNetworks he pointed out a citation I used that was un-needed and on Butts they pointed out I hadn't filled out all the citation parameters, so I completed those tasks.

Not sure what is drawing editors to the Request Edit queue, but I saw an IP that was active and a few unfamiliar usernames. Could be nothing. A lot of the ones I closed will pop back hopefully with stronger sources. I also have Monroe College on my to do list, because that one needs someone to write "the rest of the article" to balance out the page, so it's going to take a lot of effort to get a decent page in place. CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on change to rfc closure

I was wondering if you could quickly comment on your thoughts about my proposal in response to your thread Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Guidance_on_who_can_close. I am thinking about bringing this proposed policy change to wp:village pump (policy), and before I did I wanted to see if you had any suggested modifications. (I also created a sandboxed, proposed modification to the RfC template to support this (you can see it in my sandbox at User:Obsidi/sandbox). --Obsidi (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have many thoughts, here are a couple - one is that we ought to be thinking about where to have the discussion, it is clear that the RfC talk page is the wrong page. Ultimately, it ought to be at WP:Policy, but I urge you to start at idea lab. While I like some of your thoughts, there are a number of moving parts, and I think the idea lab is a better place to work them out. For example, I think three editor panel, some or all of who would be non-admins might make sense in some cases. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought things like this go in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and not Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab), was I wrong about that? (Or were you referring to idea lab as village pump in general?) --Obsidi (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Historically, you are right. VPI is relatively new. Many editors skip it and go right to Policy. I think that is acceptable in rare circumstance - when you have a well-formulated proposal for a change to policy that can be addressed by an up or down vote. I'll emphasize that this is my personal desire, but motivated by experience with brain-storming exercises. It is important, in such exercises, to separate the idea phase, when you are trying to find a solution to a problem, from the enactment phase, when you have to choose among two or more options created in the brainstorming phase. When we go to Policy first, and the propsal isn't clear-cut, we try, very poorly, to do brainstorming, editing and voting all in the same place, with the usual result that nothing happens.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok, well I put my idea here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Proposed Change to Closure of RfCs. --Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide/Workshop

Hello! I made this edit a few minutes ago and I would appreciate your input as a clerk with experience at Arbcom. Specifically, am I submitting that material in the correct place and in the correct format? I went through several past cases and selected what looked like a common form for refuting evidence, but there was quite a bit of variation. Thank you for your time. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am out of town on a business trip, expecting to be home tomorrow evening. You posed a question that will require some research on my part, I am also contacting some others to make sure I give you good advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response. Hahc21 also took a look and made a tweak, so I'm thinking all's well. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't that "analysis" need to be signed by Tgeairn? As it stands, it isn't, which makes it look like it's intended to be a dispassionate, unbiased "analysis", which it most certainly is not. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Lithistman: While I don't agree with the emphasis in your statement, I do agree that it needs to be attributed to me in some way. Since Sphilbrick is out of town, I also asked Hahc21 to take a look and tell me which dotted line to sign on. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  You think your analysis was dispassionate and unbiased? LHM^{ask me a question} 00:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I gotta say, I've never fully understood what the Workshop pages are for--I thought they wuz for ArbCom members only. Which reminds me I still have to weigh in somewhere, though I don't have that much to say. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's what I thought as well. But I haven't paid real attention to an Arbcom case in many years (maybe back when Giano got dragged in front of them in 2007 or thereabouts?), so I might be wrong. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• On the bright side (yes, that is a bright side), Zambelo is out of the picture, and that saves me a lot of typing--their accusations were ridiculous. Sphilbrick, thanks for cleaning that up. Their now-deleted talk page had me as a member or something like that of Landmark worldwide, which is the second-most ridiculous thing I heard today. (My first edit in that Landmark cluster, whenever that was, not long ago, is the first time I heard of them.) Lithistman, I had a look at the accusations made by Astynax; much of that is related to that NRM list and I have very little to say on the topic. I don't think I ever edited that article.

  But Zambelo's case suggests something important: it is easy to get carried away and to have content discussions turn personal and antagonistic, and to divide editors into pro- and anti-camps, as if that's all they are. Zambelo noted that I had posted NRM-related message on Cirt's talk page; yes, I have, though many of them were automated notifications, but what Zambelo can't or won't see is that Cirt and I go way back, waaay back--not always as the best of friends, frequently in disagreement, but always I hope with some mutual respect. If Cirt were a party in this ArbCom case, I would not want to say a single bad word about them. But if anyone thinks for one moment that my edits to all these articles are based on anything but policy (sure, my reading of policy), they are mistaken. I said it before, I have no dog in this fight. I have no love for any NRMs, or for any old RMs for that matter, but no hate either. Thanks all, and I hope that cool(er) heads will prevail. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN closure

No, you cannot talk me into it — for the simple and embarrassing reason that I've never figured it out, and I suppose I'd mess something up. Would you please add it for me? Please write a message of "The RFC/U was properly deleted, although another one may be filed." and copy/paste my signature from the bottom of the section, and don't sign your name, so that any objections come to me instead of to you. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)