User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Hanoch Kalai page deletion

Why did you delete this page? There was a "hang on" note there. Was I supposed to edit the page at work? This is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.137.62 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. However, a hang on note is no guarantee that an article will not be deleted. I'm generally quite willing to wait when I see a hang on note, except for attacks and copyvios. We cannot, and do not leave up material when it is believed to be in violation of copyright.--SPhilbrickT 20:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Camilopinilla's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm responding there and at the Kevin Brown talk page.--SPhilbrickT 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Imperfect

Re. User talk:Camilopinilla#Kevin Brown (author), and the excellent debate about if it is "better to have an imperfect article than no article at all".

There is some direct support from WP:V, because it directly quotes His Lord Highness Mr Wales, from this.

With the emphasis on BLP, I agree w/ Mr. Wales on this point. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I responded at her talk page, but I thank you again, I've bookmarked that page, as I expect to use it again.--SPhilbrickT 21:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Restore Giridharilal Kedia

Please restore the article Giridharilal Kedia which you have deleted & please place {{OTRS pending}}on the article's discussion page. Odisha1 07:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has restored it. I'm not sure that was appropriate, but it appears that the article has issues other than copyright, so I'll let them get sorted out.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Subpages of User:Mathewignash

some time ago, you userfied some deleted articles for Mathewignash. One of them was Mutant (Transformers). Now, some of the others might have some chance to be notable, but the mutants are REALLLLLY unlikely to be notable. My question is, is it okay that the deleted article is userfied even though it stands no chance of being restored? NotARealWord (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It was my intention ( I hope I delivered on this) to userfy the articles and make sure they were noindexed. I'm in favor of giving editors a fair amount of leeway in user space, (attacks and copyvios excepted) as long as the pages are not indexed. It is (relatively speaking) easy to tell if an article in its present state is notable. It is harder to conclude that the subject matter, no how and no way could ever be notable, and even stronger, than there's no way anyone could ever create a notable article that might reuse some of the material in the userfied article. At some time in the future, for example if the editor hasn't been active for a year, or made any changes to the draft for a couple years, I would support a removal at n MfD, but even then, only on the basis of housekeeping, as the cost of space rounds to zero. I would tend to take a harder line if the editor were doing nothing useful, and it appeared the editor were trying o use WP as a private webspace, but if the editor is otherwise contributing, and thinks there could be some use for the material in some way, I'd err on the side of helping the editor.--SPhilbrickT 16:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I checked. I usually remember to noindex userfied pages, but I didn't in that case. I fixed it. --SPhilbrickT 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering Mathewignash's comment, it does seem like the Mutants, "no how and no way could ever be notable". It seems that they didn't do very much within the fiction either. NotARealWord (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue of scarce resources. How long would it take to ascertain that the article will never ever, no way possibly be notable. Maybe only a few minutes, if the author doesn't disagree. But in a few minutes, I can delete a few CSD articles, or add geolocation to a couple articles in Category:Massachusetts articles missing geocoordinate data. IMO, the encyclopedia is better off with two new geolocations for articles than if a nonindexed draft article, that no one will see unless they know where to look, is deleted. That's without even considering the possibility that the author might disagree, despite the comment. It isn't worth my time. --SPhilbrickT 19:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Phil; it really isn't worth the time worrying. User:Mathewignash/Mutant (Transformers) does no harm. Sometimes such things can actually be useful to editors - it's amazing the way some great articles begin as utter tripe. Also, for non-admin-users, we can't see (and can't remember) exactly what is in a page until it is userfied. I've seen stuff CSD'd, had it userfied to me, and then thought "oh, yep, it was utter rubbish after all". Is it then worth bothering to re-delete it? Probably not. As Phil said, we've got better stuff to do. Of course, MFD is always available to you, NotARealWord, if you think it worthwhile.  Chzz  ►  17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 14:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion review for Giridharilal Kedia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Giridharilal Kedia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Odisha1 (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Viacheslav Dinerchtein

I tagged the page (Viacheslav Dinerchtein)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriele449 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I deleted it--SPhilbrickT 23:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The Robert Conley fix you did looks great

Dear SPhilbrickT: Thank you for your reply to my question below and the rationale you cite. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, thus I hope you can excuse the "poorly formed external link." With respect to the term "Viral Decay Acceleration," would the following qualify as a relaible source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015135 Thank you, WGR11 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday, I submitted a new page with a definition for Viral Decay Acceleration. I provided the following reference: http://www.koronispharma.com/viraldecayacceleration.html. It appears that this page is schedule for deletion and I'm not sure I understand why. Also, I'd like to know what I can do to publish this page on Wikipedia. Thank you. WGR11 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems. You say that you provided a reference. However, the site wasn't formed as a reference, it was included as a bare link in the external links section, so the article technically had no references, plus a poorly formed external link. The link didn't qualify as a reference, so it wouldn't help to format it correctly; it doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source. The term is trademarked, which doesn't preclude inclusion in Wikipedia, but it does look like someone trying to market a new term. When the only "reference" is the company involved with the term, it looks more like spam than an encyclopedia article. If there were multiple examples of the term in reliable sources, the situation might be different.--SPhilbrickT 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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

3 column table for MM&W site

Dear S,

Thanks or your idea for Converting spreadsheet to wikitable format- I looked at that site, and it appears complicated. AS a new Contributor, there sure is a lot to learn. This converter appears easier to me- Ever use it? http://excel2wiki.net/wikipedia.php To convert from spreadsheets such as Gnumeric, MS Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc, you can use the Copy & Paste Excel-to-Wiki converter or you can save your spreadsheets as .csv and use the csv2wikitable converter.

This table below is what I want to add to this site-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKim,_Mead,_and_White

Can you please help me, by adding it somewhere and I will fill in the info?  Sorry for the formatting, as this is a hard thing to learn.

I don't understand why adding blanks in front of text creats a dotted box? I'd like Leftmost column with the text in Bold. then 3 Columns for all the info. A nice color to match the usual InfoBox would be great, too. If you cannot help, please suggest who might. I can also email you an Excel layout if that is easier. I don't know why it is so complicated to do something so seemingly simple.

Thanks.

     McKim       Mead               WHITE 

Born x-x-xx ................ 8-20-1846 ............. .. 11-9-1854

                 Brattleboro, VT

Died .... xxxx ......... June 19, 1928 (aged 81) .......... 6-25-1906

                        Paris, France 

Married: date/wife wife 1 1888 no

               wife 2  1899     

Architect's office before joining MM&W ' Sturgis

Thanks for your help. RonRice (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The convention that lines starting with a blank have a blue box added it a deliberate convention in MediaWiki.

The Excel addin isn't hard if you are used to macros, but if you aren't, it might be a lot to deal with.

I haven't looked at any other convert options.

Tables are hard because they have to be converted to html, and html wasn't designed with tables in mind. They do have code, but it isn't pretty.

If you want to email me an Excel file, I'll try converting it for you. (Look on the left hand side of the screen, (when in my user page or talk page) and you should see an "E-mail this user" link. If you don't see it, you'll have to click on "toolbox" first to open it.--SPhilbrickT 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RonRice (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why'd you stop answering emails and questions after you agreed to sponsor me? rrRonRice (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that I have a couple unread emails from you. It will be much better if we carry on discussions here, I understand there may be a need to send a file, and that may be easier by email. I'll take a look at the emails shortly.--SPhilbrickT 21:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

McFearless (single) and CSD

This article struck me as strange. The Kings of Leon have an enormous fan-base and a single supposedly released in December 2007 would certainly have spawned an article before February 2011. Compare the revision history and overall style with that of their previous single: Charmer (song).

After a little research, it's clear that this song was never released as a single. I gave the article creator a chance to come clean, but was ignored:

I have some concerns about this article that you created. McFearless is an album track and never received an official release as a single. You say on the Because of the Times article that McFearless was released on the 10th of December, and (on the single article) that it reached number 1 on the RIANZ charts. Looking through the RIANZ singles chart archives around that date, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it. Indeed, a site specific Google search suggests that it is not anywhere on that site (compare with the results for the single "Sex on Fire").

Could it be that you're mistaken? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's not blatant enough, and requires an AFD? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, it's not obvious enough that the article is a deliberate hoax. I've taken it to AFD. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a different view of the term "hoax" and I have no idea if my view is consensus, but when I saw hoax, I thought that the band was fictional, or maybe the band was real, but there was no such track. It appears there is such a track, but some question, maybe even serious question about whether that track was released as a single. I see that as a possible mistake or misunderstanding. If deliberate, it's weird, but not a hoax in my mind. I grant that if the editor knows it was never released as a single, but created the article anyway, some might view that as a hoax. However, given that the track appears to exist, I think an AfD, where some people can look into it, and delete it is the editor is wrong, is the best way to go. No big deal.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. Nice to know that us Gnomes are appreciated. Arjayay (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Speaking for myself, I don't have any problems with "one question in two parts". In fact, if the two questions depend on each other, the candidate is likely to prefer to see the whole thing at the same time. Whether two questions are related enough to count as one question is one of those "I know it when I see it" things, and of course, I wouldn't be looking to give someone a hard time if they had a different interpretation. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm mildly conflicted on the RFA question. On one hand, I support the notion that we've proposed many, many things, but aren't actually trying anything, and there is value in a low cost experiment. However, I'm convinced that the proposal arose from a single recent RfA, where several questions were asked early. In general, I react negatively to "solutions" that are broad, rule based solutions to a one-off incident. I'll bet if one reviewed the last hundred RfAs, one would be hard pressed to find more than one that would be measurably different if such a rule were in place. My objection is minor. While it is genuine, of someone concluded that there is sufficient consensus to try the experiment, I'd have no objection. My other confliction (is that a word?) is that I rarely find myself disagreeing with you, so maybe I am wrong.--SPhilbrickT 21:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks kindly, I don't generally know if anyone is listening. (Maybe we should make that a guideline: "Anyone who disagrees with Dank is wrong." I'd support it.) Your objection is spot on, and Balloonman has also raised serious objections. OTOH, if we propose something that would affect many RFAs, the odds that we'll get consensus drop commensurately. My bottom line is: I'll support anything that improves the Q&A section in any way, as long as we can get consensus for it. Otherwise we're wasting time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Viacheslav Dinerchtein page

I recall having seen this article - a shorter version of it - some months ago and it still exists in other languages. It surprised me very much when I discovered that someone deleted it, and so I re-did it again. This is a highly accomplished violist, who performed in the most prestigious venues around the world and makes important contributions in popularizing the viola, and I see no reason why information about him would not be made available to the public. I believe it may have been deleted by mistake. I do accept your remark, the text of the article I created does sound alike to the one found in http://www.classicalconnect.com/Viacheslav_Dinerchtein/2598 or similar sources. I will make the necessary corrections / adjustments. Thanks,,

StringsAttached (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 03:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Viral Decay Acceleration

Dear SPhilbrickT: Thank you for your reply to my question below and the rationale you cite. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, thus I hope you can excuse the "poorly formed external link." With respect to the term "Viral Decay Acceleration," would the following qualify as a relaible source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015135 Thank you, WGR11 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

copy of original question and response; collapse for readability
padding
Yesterday, I submitted a new page with a definition for Viral Decay Acceleration. I provided the following reference: http://www.koronispharma.com/viraldecayacceleration.html. It appears that this page is schedule for deletion and I'm not sure I understand why. Also, I'd like to know what I can do to publish this page on Wikipedia. Thank you. WGR11 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) There are a couple of problems. You say that you provided a reference. However, the site wasn't formed as a reference, it was included as a bare link in the external links section, so the article technically had no references, plus a poorly formed external link. The link didn't qualify as a reference, so it wouldn't help to format it correctly; it doesn't appear to qualify as a reliable source. The term is trademarked, which doesn't preclude inclusion in Wikipedia, but it does look like someone trying to market a new term. When the only "reference" is the company involved with the term, it looks more like spam than an encyclopedia article. If there were multiple examples of the term in reliable sources, the situation might be different.--SPhilbrickT 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look closely, but that link appears to be a peer-reviewed article, which generally qualifies as a reliable source. (I did not check to see if it is a pre-print, but read on to see why.)

However, it is clear in the article that the term "Viral Decay Acceleration" is being introduced in that article. We want to see evidence that the term is being used other than by the originator. Should there be sufficient examples of the term in multiple reliable sources, this particular source would be especially useful to point out the origin of the phrase. However, it is not sufficient in itself to support the notability of the term.

I did a quick Google search and see other references to the term, although I didn't immediately see any that would qualify.

By the way, it helps to add new comments or questions to the bottom of a talk page. I had to search around to find your question. Don't apologize, you are new, and there's a lot of conventions to learn, but you can easily add a comment or a question to a talk page by clicking on the "new section" tab, then add a subject, your comment or question, and sign with ~~~~--SPhilbrickT 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Viral Decay Acceleration

Dear Sphilbrick:

Thank you kindly for your e-mail reply and taking the time to look into this. There are indeed a number of Wikipedia conventions to learn and for the newcomer they are sometimes a challenge. In any event, I trust this follow up is posted correctly.

As for sources where the term Viral Decay Acceleration is used, apart from this source: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015135 , here are a half-dozen others. Given this, would none of these qualify to simply have a definition of the term on Wikipedia so that interested parties might simply be allowed to see a description?

1. See page 4 of Jan. 26, 2011 Wedbush Securities report found here: http://www.koronispharma.com/newsroom.html
2. http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/29/koronis-pharma-raises-20m-to-drive-hiv-extinct/
3. http://aumag.org/wordpress/?tag=viral-decay-acceleration
4. http://uscops.com/videos-viral-decay-acceleration-for-hiv-aids-%5B3FPuIMycqv4%5D.cfm
5. http://positivelyaware.com/2007/07_04/kp_1641.html
6. http://www.defused.com/hiv-cure/videos/cure-for-hiv-viral-decay-acceleration-/

WGR11 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of a tiny refactoring to improve the readability of your questions.

First if your goal is simply to get a definition of Viral Decay Acceleration(VDA) in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia is not a dictionary

I'm assuming you are interested in an article about VDA, not simply a definition, but want a definition as part of the article. If you simply want a definition, you want Wiktionary

The general guideline for reliable sources is here: Identifying reliable sources. Two of the key concepts are:

• Third-party - in this context, it means independent of Koronis Pharmaceuticals
• A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

My quick reaction to each of the sources you identified:

1. Not independent of Koronis
2. Possibly acceptable
3. Pretty short, but possibly acceptable
4. Appears to be an embedded video created by Koronis. Not independent
5. Possibly acceptable
6. A site with an embedded link that doesn't work, but does link to a YouTube version of the video in #4. Same independence problem.

I'm not familiar enough with the sites in #2,3, and 5 to know whether the meet the criteria "A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We do have a noticeboard to ask such questions, it is here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think it is straightforward to ask, but if it isn't obvious how, let me know, and I'll post the request.--SPhilbrickT 17:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sphilbrick: Per your 17:11, 4 March 2011 you had mentioned, “I'm not familiar enough with the sites in #2,3, and 5 to know whether the meet the criteria. A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We do have a noticeboard to ask such questions, it is here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think it is straightforward to ask, but if it isn't obvious how, let me know, and I'll post the request.

I would like to ask the message board about this, but not sure how to do this. Can you kindly post this?

Thank you, WGR11 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:RSN, but if you're looking for sources, here are some potential sources.[1] Also, should this be an article about Viral Decay Acceleration (a technique) or KP-1461 (the drug)? Or both? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say for sure whether it should be about Viral Decay Acceleration (a technique) or KP-1461 (the drug). I think the editor s concerned about ensuring that it doesn't run afoul of promotional issues - my first thought was that the technique might be less of a promotional concern, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am. Thanks for your help, I'll make sure the editor sees it.--SPhilbrickT 02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at TYelliot's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re WikiCopter

		The Socratic Barnstar
		When you said you posted a note that invoked my name, I certainly didn't expect to see a complete explanation of the intent of my own comment! And, though, in my opinion, my original comment was straightforward enough, your explanation perfectly captured the essence of what I was trying to say, delivering my point as well as it could have possibly been delivered by anyone. You did this for the candidate, of course, so they understood what the problem was, but thank you very much from me all the same, for explaining my comment as well as anyone (myself included) could have. Regards, Swarm X 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Apology

There was no excuse for my massive grump at you yesterday. You were only trying to make a helpful suggestion, and didn't warrant a salvo from a battery of Nebelwerfers. Please accept my sincere apologies - I guess I'd let things get to me a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a silver lining in just about everything—I wasn't familiar with Nebelwerfers, and now I am, so I've learned something interesting.--SPhilbrickT 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

:) Comes of being married to a military historian. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa

CALDOL looks like a false positive from CorenSearchBot. I normally check those to be sure; not sure what happened. My bad; I've removed the tag. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I thought maybe there was another site and I wasn't getting to it correctly.--SPhilbrickT 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikinoob error

Apologies for making a hash of the [Pamela Evans] article's copyright stuff - I've re-contacted the subject of the article and got explicit permission to use the text on Wikipedia - and they have updated their website's footer to provide the appropriate licence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pamela_Evans for details. Cheers for pointing it out and getting me to correct it - your hard work is appreciated!

Matthew niddler (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A full restore would be handy - thank you! Matthew niddler (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrickT 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi - not sure if it was you or another admin, but it seems the license wasn't quite on the money - it wasn't 100% clear that NC isn't allowable for inclusion in Wikipedia, so that's now been removed for the Biog page. If you're able to remove the copyright infringement notice, that'd be fabulous (and hopefully no more problems with it!). Cheers/niddler. Matthew niddler (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help - I'd award you 50 wikipoints if they existed. All the best... Matthew niddler (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Server database corruption: MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Who really made that long file name (on 5 July 2010?) as file name:

User:Sphilbrick/Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Denise Long Sturdy Andre Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Join discussion at: WP:PUMPTECH#MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 spam. Thanks. -Wikid77 12:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Tags

Hello, I put that tag because it was empty, thanks for removing the tag; please inform the author not to do this again, he does not need to remove the whole page to fix an error. Thanks, Nima1024 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

James Lighthill House

Sorry about not notifying the creator, but how do I find out who is. MtKing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtking (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 12:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ban

Dear SPhilbrickT: I have been blocked because of a supposed "Tor" usage but I have never used any anonymity programs and I barely know what it is. The Arsenal Fan 09:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about TOR, but I didn't think it was prohibited, I thought the requirements for autoconfirmed were higher. I'll look into it, although I have a meeting shortly, so it may take a bit.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You aren't blocked and you aren't listed in the block log as ever having been blocked. I don't see anything on your talk page, what did you see that lead you to think you were banned or blocked (which are not the same thing, by the way)? As an aside, why do you have a non-existent user in your signature? --SPhilbrickT 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thx. I probably messed up my sig with the one on the Pokémon Wiki.

User:Arsenalbubs

NP, I see you fixed it.--SPhilbrickT 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Knocking on your door again (tho' with no dire complaints, this time)

I wonder if you have the time to look over a new page I've put up: Pierrot lunaire (book). (It's fairly short.) I've requested feedback, but no one has volunteered, and my request (March 14) has passed into the invisible limbo of "old requests." I've had one piece of feedback—from someone responding to my self-nomination for a DYK appearance—and he (or she) had this to say:

• Article is almost entirely without inline references; the footnotes are almost entirely comments, and while it's not inappropriate to have footnoted comments, these need to be in a separate section, and if we separate footnoted comments and citations, we'll be left with nothing in this section. You've given plenty of works in the "References" section; could you please add citations to them? If you're unfamiliar with the process of citations, read WP:CITE or leave a note at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first point here was useful: I've since referenced everything that seems to need it. But the other two are puzzling. No other editor (inside or outside Wikipedia) has ever required me to make a "separate section" for footnotes containing "comments." (What would a header for them be?) And the last question leaves me baffled: EVERY entry in my "References" section was cited in a footnote in the version of the page he (or she) saw.

At any rate, I have two questions for you, mainly: (1) Has anything that needs referencing now escaped me? (2) How do I handle the claims I make in the introduction—that Giraud's book is the most dense and sustained Pierrot production; that it has attracted more adapters than anything else in the Pierrot canon; etc.? I make these claims to support the "notability" of my subject, but I can support them only by saying that I have read practically everything, looked at practically everything, listened to practically everything connected with Pierrot, so I really do know. But that's "original research"—right? Beebuk 04:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear from you again. I have some tentative thoughts on some of the issues you raised, but I'd like to do a little more homework before answering.--SPhilbrickT 15:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the NCAA Tournament is in progress, and that has my attention at this time of year. I'll make a quick comment about references now, will try to comment further on other issues during the week.

First, I appreciate the difference between footnotes used for extended explanation of issues that would be distracting in the main text, and footnote used to indicate sources. That said, the former type are very rarely used in Wikipedia. If we have a policy that the two classes of notes would be separated, well we have a policy on a lot of things, not all of which I've read, and especially not all those that dwell on such a rare matter. So I'm sympathetic to the desire for the separation, but have to do more reading to see what has been said on the subject.

I'll also note that I may have dug myself a hole. Many people source primarily with online material, and I've tried to bring in some books, not necessarily online, as sources. I've adopted a convention that I create a reference section to list the books, then a separate footnotes section, using a short reference in the footnote section to the primary author of the book. An example, is Patricia Hoskins. That article doesn't have any of the first type of footnotes, and I'm not sure what I'd do if I had occasion to add one, as I've already used up both "References" and "Notes". I've been meaning to think about this, as I don't want to go too far if I should change my paradigm. Maybe I'll use your note and the Nyttend comment to think more deeply about this issue. Sorry, I'm rambling, but I need to head to a game in minutes, and will be gone all day.--SPhilbrickT 13:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the thinking you've done thus far, and I'll tune in for further thoughts. I think I've found an answer to my second question: I can tone down the claims I make and yet still make a case for the subject's "notability." So please don't fret too much over that issue. I'm sorry to trouble you about any of this at all. But I respect your judgments very much. Beebuk 23:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mickey Wynne piece deleted

Why did you delete this piece? Have you checked Google? Have you checked the names' mentioned in the piece that Mickey has worked with? their websites mentioning Mickey-all verifiable sources? If you have, it seems a rather strange action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo44 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Could you please bring back this userpage i had previously requested deleted. Thanks!

• User:Joyson Noel/Damodar Mauzo

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrickT 14:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Operative professional

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

MobileSnail 16:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RfA reform

Hi. I'm not sure if you are aware but there is a genuine move to get RfA reformed with first a trial of an alternative system. Please take a look here. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Question

Hello Sphilbrick, you have asked me to answer your question. I am a little confused with your "queston", but I am going to attempt to answer it. I have placed three images to the article Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. User: Future Perfect at Sunrise had reverted my edits saying that he thinks that only one image is enough for the article. Which I disagreed with. He also stated that too many non-free images on an article are crossing the WP:NFCC guidelines, which is correct. So I have attempted to make a compramise with Furture Perf, by only adding one image to the article, so he gets his way with the image on the infobox, and I get my way with an image elsewhere on the article. Unfortunatley, User:Future Perfect is currently being very incooaperative, which only makes matters worse. I think what you have asked (or possibly suggested) a "meet me half way" compramise in my terms, which is exactly what I am trying to do. Make a compramise with Fut Perf so we both get our ways. I think that is what you are trying to ask me. Furthermore, I agree and understand what you have said if one person proposes X and another proposes 3x, it may make sense to compromise at 2X if both X and 3X comply with policy. But I have chose to go with just adding one image, to keep away from future commotion. Pretty long answer, I hope It's correct :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably my poor phrasing of the question, but that doesn't quite get all of what I wanted, but it does respond to one part of what I asked. I'll try rewording:

Would you agree, that if X complies with policy and 3X does not comply with policy, that we should not be talking about a compromise?--SPhilbrickT 22:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather stick to the compramise by simply making 3X comply with the policy. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you refuse to answer my question, so I'll cut to the chase: it is my opinion that the additional two images selected by you do not comply with policy, so it doesn't make sense to talk about a compromise.

However, in the spirit of discussion, I'll suggest that 3X, three pictures, might be in compliance with policy, depending on what the pictures are. Neither of the ones you suggested are in compliance with the policy.

Is there some other aspect of the movie that is so critical to the understanding that failing to include a picture makes it impossible for the reader to understand what is happening? If there is, and there is an image illustrating it, then it might be compliant. But another picture of owls isn't adding enough to the understanding to justify fair use.--SPhilbrickT 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, I wasn't thinking straight at all! What I meant to say, was X and X, because that was what I had been talking about all along, which seems really fair. Man, I really can be dense sometimes :) So yes, what do you think of me making that fit the policy? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the pictures you proposed adding were compliant with the policy, in my opinion. --SPhilbrickT 23:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is easy to resolve. I will simply just choose a new picture and then get a proper copyright tag for it. But Before any of this happens, User: Future Perfect at Sunrise will have to compramise with me. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is where you are not making sense. I was trying to see if you understood the notion of compromise, and I don't think you do. I mean this in a subtle way, I'm not saying you don't know the basics. Compromise is a valid option (IMO) when there are multiple options within policy. You seem to think that Fut Perf is stubbornly refusing to compromise, when in fact, he is refusing to violate policy. I don't know whether you have any idea how important this policy is. It may be the second most important policy (behind the BLP policy to avoid libeling live people). Violation of NFCC doesn't simply make the encyclopedia a little worse, it might jeopardize the very existence. That's why people are so adamant about this, not because they know what they like and are stuff only refusing to change their minds, but because they know what is at stake. Maybe you understand this, but I haven't seen any evidence that you do.--SPhilbrickT 00:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

With all the respect, you think I don't know how to compramise? That is 100 % not true my friend. Furthermore, you do not seem to understand what I am saying either. What I am trying to say now, is let's get a fresh new start on this; I will choose a completely different image. And since I seem to have less knowledge in this category then most other categories of Wikipedia, being a helpful and mature user, you could greatfully explain how the copyright tags should be done to me. Simple as that. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You commented "With all the respect, you think I don't know how to compramise?" Sorry, you didn't read understand what I wrote. I didn't say you don't know how to compromise. I said I don't know whether you fully understand the concept. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I don't know what you know, and you don't know what I know. When those situations exist, sometimes it makes sense to ask some questions to find out what the other person does, and does not know. I don't know whether you understand when a compromise makes sense and when it doesn't. That's why I tried to ask you some generic questions so I could figure out what you did know. You refused to answer, which leaves me in the dark, but makes me think you are avoiding the question because you don't understand. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you refuse to answer, how am I supposed to figure out that you do know?

On a more positive note, I agree with your course of action. Choose a completely different image, and let's see if a FUR (Fair Use Rationale) can be written that is in compliance. I urge you to post it on the talk page, rather than in the article, and I'll discuss with you whether it can work. By copyright tags, I think you are referring to a FUR, but again, I don't know what you know. Some of the expert in the area recently wrote up exactly what to do; the steps are covered in Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems. Let me know what image you propose, and I'll help you write it, if it can be written.--SPhilbrickT 00:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. Firstly, you didn't even ask me question, (what was your question??) which is obviously why I didn't answer it. Like I said before, this is a category I have never really focoused on until a few months ago, so there is no need to figure out if I do know what you are saying, because the words are there, black and white; I am fairly new to this perticular category. It is 12:30 AM where I live, and quite frankly I need my rest. We will continute this tomorrow. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"I did read what you wrote." Fair enough. I'll correct my statement.--SPhilbrickT 01:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to get a little grumpy in these situations- which happens a lot. :) But I am glad that you are willing to help me, as I am new to this category. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, I have chosen an image, and just to refrain what you have said; did you want me to place the Fair use rationale right on the discussion page of the article, am I right? Also, may I ask, is there a difference between a non-free use rationale, and a fair use rationale or are they simply just the same thing? Regards, Monkeys 9711 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they are the same thing. Often, it makes sense just to add it to the article, but when there is some controversy, as there is here, it is better to start on the talk page and discuss what you plan to do.--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good. Also, could you tell me where I went wrong with the last rationale, as I just stated the websbite that it came from, and the adress to the image. 15:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot at the moment, as I have something to attend to but I will look at it after lunch (about 2 hours from now). You might post a link to it, so I know where it is, just in case it isn't obvious.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I will probaly not get to the rationale until later this evening though, or maybe even tomorrow as I will be quite busy. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There's no rush. I did take a quick look to see if I could find your prior rationale. I'm not sure whether I found it. Is this it? File:70074 gal.jpg Let me know, but no rush.--SPhilbrickT 20:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I previously uploaded three images, and one of them I didn't get the time to use a rationale right away as it was quite late at night, and that might have been it, and I might have even created a rationale.. Ive got many things on my mind currently, and its pretty hard to remember things at the moment haha. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm pretty busy myself.--SPhilbrickT 23:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)