User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame Israel first

now closed; feel free to poke me when you encounter ones which similarly need longarse rationales in the future. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. I was half-kidding when I brought up your name, mainly my indirect was of complimenting the other tough close, but half-kidding is half not kidding. I'm happy you took it on, your "reward" will be that I won't forget this :)--SPhilbrick T 00:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To quote David Gerard, "On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs" ;p. I enjoy getting involved in meaty debates, so hit me with whatever you find. Ironholds (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hbomb1124

He's recreated that article, again. Looking at his talk page, a block seems in order. Thanks, First Light (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked..... First Light (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, someone took care of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--SPhilbrick T 14:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard M. Guttman

Dear SPhilbrick:

I saw your message on my talk page saying that I needed to start a new section for a comment. I think I was confused between talk pages and discussions. I hope I am doing this correctly now. I tried to follow your instructions to move my Guttman article live, but I couldn't find the star next to the view history label. I see that it is on the top of this page. I think I must be on the wrong page. I will try again. Sorry and thanks, Dale Dalecorey (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Restore?

Could you restore Bill Landreth which you deleted as G10? The article was not an attack article - the subject is a hacker (specifically a cracker) who received a modicom of attention prior to and after his disappearance in the 80s. See this for example. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Not sure if it would survive an AfD, but now it has a shot at improvement. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Edits

Thats cool, don't worry about it. I'm actually used to people editing my comments on account of my rather poor spelling and grammar, so I don't have a problem with it, and in the long run linking to the above mentioned issues I listed is likely to help the user by enlightening him as to all the reasons behind the block. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Workhouse Publicity's deletion/restoration

The author of this page is trying to engage with you at Talk:Workhouse Publicity, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded at the talk page and at the user talk page.--SPhilbrick T 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Count of Tara - deleted article

The Count and Countess of Tara, if they exist, have just announced the birth of a child, 'Countess Allegra Carys', in the Daily Telegraph: http://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/births/128646/james-of-tara

What can you tell us about the origins of the article you deleted, and about the 'Count and Countess'?Shipsview (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The article I deleted was suspected to be a possible hoax. Perhaps it wasn't but it had absolutely no indication that it was legitimate—not a single reference, so it could have been deleted for other reasons. If someone wants to put together another article, meeting the guidelines, it could be accepted.--SPhilbrick T 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

...I was writing a strikingly similar decline rationale when you beat me in the battle of the edit conflicts. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's worth a lot. (more on your talk page)--SPhilbrick T 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I've replied there as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting speedy end to RM discussion and move

Please see the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lakeshore_Boulevard#Requested_move. Sswonk (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done (Nice work)--SPhilbrick T 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

What can I do to get this fellow to leave me alone? (See my talk page.) Jeremiestrother (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC) I generally eschew confrontation, but as I thought about it, my feeling is that either he leaves me alone or I leave. As I don't want to leave, how do I avail myself of "there's a convention that you can insist that a particular editor not edit your talk page"?Jeremiestrother (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Hi Sphilbrik, please could you explain why you deleted The Drinks Business page? We are in the process of updating it and adding relevant information to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. How do I go about recreating the page?

All advice welome,

Carolinesalt

I recreated the article. More detail at your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of userpages

Hi Sphilbrick,

You recently deleted some pages in my userspace: User:Cj005257/userbox/altuser, User:Cj005257/userbox/talkpage and User:Cj005257/userbox. Unfortunatly one of us has made a mistake because I didn't want the latter page to be deleted. Please can you reinstste the User:Cj005257/userbox page. Thank You

Cj005257 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Cj005257 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexandra Marie Weber

Thank you for deleting User:Alexandra Marie Weber. Per Edison's and my comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alexandra Marie Weber, would you block Alexandra Marie Weber (talk · contribs)? We suspect that the user is impersonating a real person with that name. This edit, which was made after your deletion of the userpage and is possibly defamatory, also needs to be revision deleted. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it.--SPhilbrick T 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL says the tool is for "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. " It is also for libellous information of nonpublic personal information. As you said on my page, the claims are absurd and unlikely to be taken seriously. I do not feel strongly either way. Revdel might be overkill, but the material generally falls into the area of BLP violations. It would not seem to be an abuse of Revdel to do it. The vandal could have been given another warning, but all I have seen are vandal edits, including posting a fake signature in the MFD. I see no reason to lift the block. Edison (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that one has to know how to find the material, and it is facially absurd, I'm going to pass on the revdel. --SPhilbrick T 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

John Zewizz

I noticed that you left "a request for speedy deletion non notable artist" on the John Zewizz Wikipedia page and also a "Not a valid CSD rationale". Zewizz is not a local artist who someone built a fan page for on Wikipedia. He is actually considered one of the founding fathers of "American Industrial music". He has had an extensive career/successful career that dates back to the very early 80's. If that did not come feature this adequately enough in the wiki article please tell me what you are looking for in terms of info. I have a collection of over a 100 magazines that he has been interviewed for, or written about him... so I should be able to back it up (at least I hope so). Please keep the line of communication open. My desire is simply to have the best page possible. Theebradmiller (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Someone else (an IP, so I don't know their name) left a request for speedy deletion. I reversed that decision, because the rationale they gave for deletion was not valid. I'm the one saying "don't delete". That said, I only stopped the speedy delete process, and can't guarantee that someone won't try to delete it a different way. If you have material to add that would make it a better article, that would be great.--SPhilbrick T 21:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great, I actually do, and will. I appreciate your efforts! Cheers! Theebradmiller (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the user who suggested the speedy deletion did 29 similar requests all with in the same two day period - all "industrial artist". He requested a speedy deletion three times for the Old Europa Cafe page. Could this be vandalism, or an actual concerned editor?Theebradmiller (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was quite that many. I know I reverted several that day, not sure how many, probably not 29. Maybe I should take a look.--SPhilbrick T 22:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see quite a few. Some were nominated for CSD. I reverted all that I saw. Some were nominated for PROD, which is a different process (although I'm not sure whether the editor knows the difference, as their edit summary refers to speedy deletion in some cases). I'll look into this a bit more.--SPhilbrick T 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked a few more. None have yet been deleted. In most cases, someone either simply declined the speedy, in some cases, someone converted the speedy to PROD, and in some the speedy was declined with a suggestion to AfD if they still wanted it deleted. Looks like all I checked have been handled correctly.--SPhilbrick T 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your work is appreciated. It's good to know that there are checks and balances in place. Thank you.Theebradmiller (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And I thank you for realizing that there could be others, and bringing it to my attention. And yes, I'm pleased to see that in no case did someone blindly delete it without questioning it. I know it is very easy to get delete happy when there are a lot on the list, and I'm sure it will happen, but this looks like a case where sense prevailed.--SPhilbrick T 23:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Subsea (tieback)

Hi, Sphilbrick. I see that you've deleted the Tieback (Subsea) page that I was trying to get started. I hadn't realised it was copyrighted material - I copied it from the Tieback disambiguation page. I also removed that paragraph from the disambiguation page, so it probably should have been flagged there first! Anyway, I'm okay to re-word that section. The point is that (a) it's an important use of the word tieback which should be an article, and (b) I'm trying to get some people to come an work on it properly. I thought a stub would be easier for people to edit. Grj23 (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was just an FYI, or if you expected me to take some action. Please let me know.--SPhilbrick T 16:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Re instate St Joseph's Gateshead

23:10, 6 February 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "St josephs church gateshead" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://sjosephsgateshead.co.uk/?page_id=4)

I would like this page to be re instated as I am the webmaster of St Joseph's website and have full licence over it's content as I have permission to create website as I like from the priest. I have sent an email to allow this to be put on the wikipedia site.

I have included this below.

I hereby affirm that I, Paul Robson am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [St Joseph's Parish WEbsite - I declare it allowed to be put on wikipedia the information off the site, www.sjosephsgateshead.co.uk] I agree to [STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Paul Robson <redact> [SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Appointed Webmaster and owner of St Joseph's gateshead website.)] 07/02/2011

Many Thanks

Paul Robson (St Joseph's Parish Website)

Ptrobson (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

When you say you sent an email, did you send it to:

permissions-en@wikimedia.org

If so, I'll restore the article, add the OTRS pending template, and someone should tie up the loose ends when they review your email. I can restore the page immediately, but it may take a few days or more for the email to be reviewed.

User:Ptrobson

Yes I have emailed the permissions team as per the instructions on wikipedia.

Thanks

Ptrobson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrobson (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Restored.--SPhilbrick T 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation page

Hi, Sphilbrick! You deleted the page I created for Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation "because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement". The people from Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation (who wrote the texts) asked me to do the page for them, and gave me the permission in a written form that was sent to the e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is that all we have to do, or is there something else we could do to avoid deletion of the article once again? Thank you very much for your response. Below you will find the letter with copyright permission.

I hereby affirm that I, Josip Nalis, General Secretary of Lovro & Lilly Matacic Foundation am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://fondmatacic.hr/index.php?lang=en I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Josip Nalis,General Secretary

Zlatka Salopek (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be all you have to do. I'll restore it, add the proper template, and someone will clean up loose ends.--SPhilbrick T 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My part is done. The next step is that someone will review the email you sent, confirm it, and add the ticket number, then move the notice to the talk page. However, you should work on adding references to reliable sources, so it isn't deleted for lack of notability.--SPhilbrick T 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Just an FYI: since often the OTRS releases we receive aren't usable - either they aren't explicit as the one above or they aren't from the actual copyright holder or for some other reason - if you do restore an article which was deleted as a copyright violation it should be blanked with {{subst:copyvio}} pending actual verification of usable permission. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for your quick responses, and for restoring the page. We recieved the e-mail from Verno Whitney. Zlatka Salopek (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard M. Guttman

Dear SPhilbrick: I just looked at the article on Howard M. Guttman that I moved to the live space last week, and was thrilled to see that it has not been flagged with any issues. Is there a finite time period within which reviewers flag articles, after which they are considered to have passed muster? Do you think the article has been accepted?

I would like to thank you for all the help you gave me and for your patience as I tried to navigate the Wiki system for the first time. I was very fortunate to have made contact with you.

All the best, Dale Dalecorey (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking some info, will respond in a few minutes.--SPhilbrick T 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's good news. Many pages are reviewed within minutes of creation, so the fact that you saw nothing after a day is a good sign. New articles that might not get reviewed immediately are on a new pages list. I just looked at the list of articles which have not been looked at, and will get looked at over the next couple weeks. The Guttman article is not on the list, which means someone has looked at it. Nothing is guaranteed, anyone might stumble across it at any time and identify a problem, but it is far less likely now that it has been reviewed. Congratulations.

I notice that it is in no categories. It would help to add a category, if you don't know how, let me know.--SPhilbrick T 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the warning about CSD

Thank you, I didn't know you had to do it, and I usually use Twinkle, but I was at school, and they only use IE. It won't happen again! Rchard2scout (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please tell me why you have deleted "National Association of Chimney Engineers" for G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.projectbook.co.uk/organisation_51.html when the content of this projectbook page has been copied from the National Association of Chimney Engineers own website http://www.nace.org.uk/content/about_us.htm? If anyone is guilty of unambiguous copyright infringement it is projectbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman69 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

re: RfD of David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez

If you feel strongly about the appropriateness of that redirect, I urge you to weigh in on the RfD discussion in progress. The discussion has only been going for 4 days, however. Closing it prematurely and in the face of, at best, very weak consensus is inappropriate. Please restore the redirect and allow the discussion to run its normal course. Rossami (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I see that the rfd tag was overwritten with a mangled speedy-tag. This is a good example of why it's so important to check a page's history before executing a speedy. When you restore the page, please revert it to the 7 Feb version. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You have my permission to restore it, if you are worried about wheel warring. I'm not going to restore an idiotic redirect. If there's a problem with people creating an article, salt the title.--SPhilbrick T 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The best reason to restore it is to troutslap the nominator who deliberately overwrote the correct tag and is attempting to game the system in order to get his/her way. Process is important and that kind of behavior should not be rewarded.
The other reasons for the redirect are weaker but already articulated in the RfD discussion. Briefly, because the redirect preempted the creation/expansion of a non-notable fork and served as a visible sign that no, we really do not want articles on any random pairing of sports players.
I appreciate your understanding. I'll restore and revert it to allow the discussion to finish. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Wiki Lei Barnstar

I tagged Template:Wiki Lei Barnstar for CSD G2, and you deleted it. All's well so far. But the creator, Teinesavaii (talk · contribs), wants it back (they posted on my talk). I can't remember the actual content of this template (I have tagged many, many templates for CSD over the past month). Could you please look and see if it is worth restoring? If it is, then could you userfy it for the user, and tell them how to substitute it as a user subpage? Thanks, and sorry to bother you like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done No problem, I've seen you identifying quite a few problematic templates.--SPhilbrick T 13:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Prpringle Ltd

18:45, 16 February 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Prpringle ltd" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Is it possible i could have a copy of the deleted text, i am now looking into wikipedias guidelines for article creation trying not to infringe on the terms. My email is <redact> thank you and apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T012455 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done (not email, but recreated - see your user talk page)--SPhilbrick T 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Angola (Portugal)

Why was the redirect deleted? It was deleted just today, and I'm not convinced by the reason in the edit summary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Will look into it now--SPhilbrick T 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Angola (Portugal), the redirect to Angola (Portugal) still exists. I deleted a redirect of a talk page, which I don't believe is needed. The talk page Talk:Angola (Portuguese Empire) is attached to Angola (Portugal).

Do you think I'm missing something? --SPhilbrick T 15:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the precedent for talk pages, is there a way to see if any links are made to it? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Portuguese East Africa and Talk:Portuguese West Africa link to it, but again, both of those underlying pages are now redirects. I can imagine that someone might search for "Portuguese West Africa" (and they would find the redirect), but I can't imagine anyone would search for "Talk:Portuguese West Africa".--SPhilbrick T 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was more worried about wikilinks to the pages. Is there a reason those talk redirects exist and the latest one was deleted? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if there had been article pages linking to that redirect, I would have reconsidered the deletion. As for why this one, and not the others? A relatively new editor is tagging a number of pages in this category (e.g. redirects of talk pages), and they may not have gotten to those other two. I thought about deleting them myself, but the list of CSD candidates has jumped beyond 100, and is still growing despite a couple dozen deletions I've done recently, so I'm spending all my time depopulating the list.--SPhilbrick T 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Go admin. Thanks for the taking the time to explain, appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for review and AN/I comments

Hi, Sphilbrick! I just wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for your having taken the time to review the kerfuffle over a non-admin closure of an RfC at Right-wing politics, and for the comments you made at AN/I based on that review. Admin Gwen Gale once opined to me that political articles on Wikipedia are "thorny nests of woe", and I try to avoid them for that reason: I indulged myself in participating in this one only because I wanted to learn about the historical and non-U.S. meanings of a word that I thought (incorrectly) I understood perfectly, viz. "liberal". Anyway, people like yourself, who graciously provide an independent view of matters like this RfC closure certainly make the "thorny nests" a bit less thorny, and I'm very grateful for that. Thanks so much for your assistance. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I learned a fair amount reading that exchange, so it was worth the effort. --SPhilbrick T 21:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

North High Drama

Why delete North High Drama? I am a student in the program and I don't think this is fair at all. It was time consuming to make that page. Please contact me at <removed>

We prefer to keep Wikipedia discussion on Wikipedia, with some rare exceptions that do not apply in this case. I've responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 23:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand but...

I have made small edits to the page in the past without logging in. I just made a wiki account today. I was going to focus on fixing the north drama page as soon as I finished the brothers grimm page but it wasn't there. I will remake it. Now, I am not too familiar with how Wiki works but is there any way you can send me what was written on the page? That would help a lot. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanrodri (talk • contribs) 23:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Original article moved to User:Sanrodri/North High Drama--SPhilbrick T 23:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Thank you for your help. I was in the middle of writing to oversight when you fixed it. Thank you again for your help. Much appreciated. LordVetinari (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help.--SPhilbrick T 13:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Permission is granted to copy

Dear Sphilbrick, I hereby affirm that Lions Club is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of lionsdist322c2.org

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyonekthe right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikipedia article "Giridharilal Kedia"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giridharilal_Kedia).

Anjali Chhotray Immediate Past District Governor Lions Club International Dist 322c2 February 21, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.19.38.185 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please note that Donating copyrighted materials provides the locations to where the permission must be sent. Once they receive it, and confirm it, I understand they will assign an OTRS ticket number, which can be added when you recreate the article. Please let me know if this isn't clear, and I will get more details.--SPhilbrick T 13:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Coffee Party Page

Hi, just saw your comments regarding my contributions on the Coffee Party page, my alleged confrontational tone, possibility of being blocked, and invitation to talk.

I'd LOVE to discuss this all with you. However, please first address each and every one of the points I made on the Coffee Party discussion, page, the corresponding edits, the deletion of my edits, the editor who deleted my edits, and the reasons for the deletions. I really don't see how any intelligent discussion of my conduct can be had until you've done so. You do see how that would be fair, don't you?

I don't understand what exactly you find "confrontational," in my tone or conduct. From my perspective your characterization of it as so (and implied threat to ban me) is far more confrontational. I think we can quickly agree on the following: (1) the Coffee Party USA page is edited and protected by persons closely affiliated with the Coffee Party who wish to maintain it solely as a advertisement for the party (in violation of Wikipedia standards) and exclude any opposing view of the organization (2) the "confrontation" you identify consists of my truthful and documented contributions being deleted without reason or discussion, followed by an accusation of me being "confrontational" when I restore them. If you are of a different opinion, please review the entire discussion page, and perform the analysis requested above. Quite frankly, if you're going to go around leaving "friendly" comments on people's comments pages, you might make a stop at Xenophrenic's, criticize his conduct, and threaten to ban him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a spoof?--SPhilbrick T 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a spoof. In fact, I assumed your comment "is this a spoof" was a spoof, in particular, a spoof of the empty, content-free, nonsensical replies I get whenever I add detailed, corroborated information to an article.

You left a comment on my talk page. I assumed it was left in good faith. I explained that if you were going to accuse me of being "confrontational" or threaten to ban me, it would be helpful if you first reviewed the entire editing and discussion pages of the Coffee Party article before jumping to conclusions. In particular, I pointed out that "confrontation" is not something trivial like tone but rather the wholesale dishonesty and unexplained deletions practiced by editors who make no effort to justify their conduct.

I see now that your comment was not left in good faith. In response to my full and fair explanation, you opted for a four-word blow-off of my points. That being the case, please do not leave any more comments on my talk page. They are not welcome and I will treat any further threats from you as harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your response was deleted without explanation. I didn't read it all. However, the tone was quite confrontational, and I was unable to ascertain why. I see the potential for you to become indefinitely blocked. If you would like advice on how to improve your approach, I'm open to that; it not, it's okay. There's no need to analyze the history the exchanges on our respective talk pages because such context is always irrelevant to who is right or wrong. I'm right, and you're confrontational, because I calmly deleted your comments without explanation and you gave reasons for your objection to that practice. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You crack me up. Looks like we are done, which is fine by me, as you seems a little on the high maintenance side. Thanks for not accepting my offer. Now I can work on improving the encyclopedia.--SPhilbrick T 16:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent!! I'm glad we agree that "high maintenance" means adopting your level of discourse, which is what my last comment did. And now that you're free to improve the encyclopedia, I'm sure you'll RUN to add needed balance to the Coffee Party article.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the Coffee Party, so no, I won't run to "add balance". My interests lie in other areas. However, I am interested in making sure that editors are not violating Neutral Point of View guidelines, so if you will identify specific concerns, I will promise to look into them. (Just to avoid wasting time, a general "look at the talk page" does not count as specific. Either specifically summarize points here, or point me to specific edits, whichever is easier.--SPhilbrick T 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

multiple non-notable pages

You recently speedily deleted a page of a tennis player, Whitney Jones, that I nominated. I've been looking at other new pages created by the same user, Special:Contributions/Saihimesh, and it appears most of the new pages are also non-notable. Some of the pages say, "won several ITF events". Unfortunately, the events are non Grand-Slam junior titles. Nothing makes them notable per WP:NTENNIS.

What should I do? Do I add them all to be speedily deleted or bunch them together in an AfD? Whitney Jones had been deleted before. Is is this editor re-creating deleted articles?

Created pages in last month: Nudnida Luangnam - Napaporn Tongsalee - Daniela Kix - Katarina Kachliková - Delia Sescioreanu - Delia Sescioreanu - Olga Lazarchuk - Conny Perrin - Galina Fokinā - Shelley Stephens

Bgwhite (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that non-notable is not an acceptable CSD rationale, the hurdle for CSD is a lower one, importance. That said, after a brief glance at some of them, it doesn't appear that any of them are even meeting the lower hurdle.

Merely appearing in a tournament is clearly not sufficient to meet the notability hurdle, but I don't think it even meets the lower hurdle of importance.

My initial thought - it is easier to CSD than to AfD, even as a bulk AfD. I suggest you tag those you identified as CSD, I'll delete and send a note to the editor. However, if any of them assert that the player won a tournament (I don't mean the generic claim like "She has won numerous ITF titles" but a specific title, then I think it should go to AfD to determine whether the title is sufficient for to pass the notability hurdle or not.)

If you agree, go ahead and tag, that will place then in the CSD cat, and anyone can delete, but if you post a note here, I'll go through them so that others don't have to do a more thorough review. I'll know what to look for.--SPhilbrick T 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one other important thought, if you do decide to CSD each one, we've generally decided it is a bit bitey to send a separate notification for each individual one. Instead, add one notification, then edit the notice to add "Other articles with the same issues foo, foo2..." or something along those lines.--SPhilbrick T 18:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do a CSD on them. There were a couple more new player articles they created in the past month that I didn't list above. One was clearly notable while the other one won a 25,000 ITF doubles tournament, thus satisfying WP:NTENNIS. I just looked at Nudnida Luangnam again and noticed the external links are to a different player...still not notable. I'll double check everything and go over some of the other articles created over a month ago. Before I start adding the CSD tag, I'll come back here and make sure you are on-line. I don't want another admin to start having fun when you are up for the punishment. Bgwhite (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You might wish to note that I posted about Olga Kalyuzhnaya here. --SPhilbrick T 19:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Boy, finding tennis records is a mess. The ITF website only lists titles won if it is a $50,000 tournament or higher. WP:NTENNIS has its cutoff at $25,000. So, you have to look at the WTA website for each player and have to search year by year to see if they won a $25,000 tournament. Nudnida Luangnam, Conny Perrin, and Galina Fokinā are the only new articles in which players have not won atleast one $25,000 tournament in singles or doubles. A new article, Juho Paukku, by a different editor also doesn't qualify. The editor, Special:Contributions/Saihimesh, is also not writing articles to WikiProject Tennis guidelines... No infobox, no listing of what tournaments won and not getting the url link in the references correct (not one WTA reference was correct). The Juho Paukku article shows the correct style. I'll go thru their May new article creations tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Or we could bring the mountain to Mohammed. If the ITF only lists titles with 50K or higher, isn't that a better cutoff than 25K? I don't know how the 25K was established, but my guess is that it is more or less arbitrary, intended as a cutoff to identify tournaments of some level of importance. The IF has explicitly said that 50k is their cutoff. Now, it doesn't automatically follow that the ITF cutoff exactly matches our definition of notable, but it seems like a plausible assumption. Not to mention that the individual athlete rules are attempts to provide safe harbor estimates of what GNG would indicate. I doubt that someone did a formal survey and found that 25K is exactly the level associated with GNG.

On the other hand, changing a guideline isn't a trivial task, but it may be worth a shot.--SPhilbrick T 11:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have stated it better. I have seen $50,000 tournaments listed but have yet to see anything below listed. I don't know if that is ITF policy or not. WP Tennis is a very active project and lots of answers/questions are being asked. So I'll some questions. Oh, condolences on having to work with the Bart photo editor. I've seen him around alot lately and to say it nicely, they go in with guns blazing and ask questions later. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked some questions on WikiProject Tennis at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Some questions Bgwhite (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

<- Thanks for the post. I read the discussion around WP:NTENNIS and it looks like it was fairly well thought out, but I got lost when I tried to see how it affects the issue you and I were discussing. Unfortunately, I out too many irons in the fire, and I'm trying to be engaged in a (likely to be time wasted) attempt to reform ArbCom rules at the same time I'm involved in multiple VP initiatives, so I won't be able to do it justice.

There's no deadline though. If you reach a point that you can clearly identify which of the articles are eligible for CSD, and give me a heads up, I'll tackle them. Of course, any ol' admin can delete them, and that's fine, but if I'm around (won't be until Thursday) I should have a leg up on the issues.

BTW, I saw an interesting discussion of the interaction of WP:NTENNIS and GNG, an area I've always found confusing. My current take—GNG is ultimately the right answer, but if someone creates an article that fails WP:NTENNIS, one can put the burden on them to prove it is notable. In contrast, if they pass WP:NTENNIS, we presume notability, and the burden is on those wanting to delete to show that sources cannot be found. I probably need to reword that, but I've got to go.--SPhilbrick T 23:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nudnida Luangnam, Conny Perrin, Galina Fokinā, Olga Kalyuzhnaya, Alizé Lim, Tara Iyer, Prerna Bhambri and Alison van Uytvanck are the players that need to be deleted. The editor just re-created Whitney Jones, the tennis player that was initially speedy deleted that started this mess. So it will need to be deleted again. I re-nonimated Jones for deletion, but was turned down. Tell me when, where and what to do next. I'm usually on-line 12:00am - 4:00am Eastern time, but look in and do things earlier in the day as time permits. Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First, on Jones, Ged UK is right that G4 doesn't apply. The article has three references, but that's misleading. the first is a link to a search page, the second is to the results of that same page for Jones, which merely lists her DOB. The third has a bit more info, but not much. However, given the deletion, the recreation, and a contested deletion, I think it would be cleaner to go for a separate AfD for Jones.

As for the others, I agree they deserve CSD. I only see one technical problem. Each asserts that they have won numerous ITF titles. That appears to be untrue; they may have won numerous matches, but I spot-checked and did not find a title won. I suspect if there is a title, it is not one of the ones that qualify. The concern is that CSD requires that one fail to make an assertion of importance. Claiming one won multiple titles might qualify as an assertion of importance, even though the evidence doesn't support the claim. However, you've checked, and I've checked (some) and we have found no "evidence" of importance. I suggest you nominate each of the first eight for CSD. I'll watch for them, and if I see them, I'll delete. If someone else sees them first, and investigates, I think they will come to the same conclusion, it will just take them longer. If any of the CSDs are contested by an admin, or recreated after deletion, the articles should go to AfD. If that happens, I would suggest a group AfD for any that aren't deleted.--SPhilbrick T 11:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oy, I know how to create a mess. Cleaning up a mess is a different story. I can't remember, but I think it is only two or three that never won a title. The rest did win one or more titles, but only at the $10,000 level. About 1/2 of the players I didn't list had won just a $25,000 title and it was usually a doubles title. I'm starting to think in the long run a AfD will be better. The editor has shown they might re-create a page. If another admin sees a CSD for one of the players, they will probably decline the CSD outright the same way GedUK did. I wouldn't blame any admin for doing a decline because from any of the articles, there sounds like a claim of notability. I'd also feel better, because I might have missed a $25,000 tournament won by any of the players. Bgwhite (talk)

Funny, I was sitting here thinking that there aren't all that many. Perhaps AfD would be cleaner. Give me a heads up when you do it, I don't do a lot of participation at AfD, but I've looked into this enough that I ought to contribute.--SPhilbrick T 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is located at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Jones‎ Bgwhite (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)