User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 00:24, 28 March 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 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the pic!

Hi Sphilbrick ~~ Thank you for adding your picture of Gary Blair! I really appreciate it! BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfA reform

Hi Sphilbrick/Archive 12. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm checking in now, hope to be able to respond soon, but perhaps not today. I just finished my fifth meeting this morning, now have to grab lunch, go to dentist, then have an intense meeting this afternoon. --SPhilbrickT 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Huskies

Hi there. Hope all is well. Although I did not work on women's basketball this season (was occupied with women's ice hockey), I was shocked that the Huskies did not win the Final Four. I was so sure they were going to meet Baylor in the championship game. Maple Leaf (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try to provide some feedback soon. I got a chance to read much of the material this weekend, but now I am running a three day intensive User Acceptance Test session, so will have very limited until Friday.--SPhilbrickT 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-starting Sydney Thunder, a page you previously A7'd

Hi Sphilbrick! I have been WP:BOLD and re-started an article you deleted on 16 March 2011. Your deletion rationale was:

16:35, 16 March 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Sydney Thunder" ? (A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

I would argue that the re-started article fully meets A7. However, I admit I did not follow guidelines. I did not ask the deleting admin - ie: you - before re-starting the article. The fault is entirely my own.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't around when the guidelines for contacting the deleting admin were discussed and written. Rather than search for the rationale, I'll explain what I would have said in support had I been involved:

Experience shows that the vast majority of deleted articles are started by new editors, who may not have experience with the guidelines for what can be included in Wikipedia. (However, I see this generality doesn't apply to you.) While all deletions are accompanied by a reason, in many cases the reason supplied is boilerplate, and may not fully address the specific situation. Contacting the deleting admin may help identify the specific concerns, rather than just the generic issues, and may make it easier to identify specific additions or changes that may make the subject suitable, or may clarify why such an effort may be a waste of time. (I would add that it may be at least as valuable to contact the editor who proposed the deletion, as they may have more familiarity with the subject matter, and may have more targeted advice.)

All that said, I view this as advice, rather than a requirement, so thanks for letting me know, but no big deal (to me.)

I looked quickly at Sydney Thunder. I suspect the concern is articulated in WP:FUTURE. In short, Wikipedia is quite reluctant to include articles about future events, with some exceptions that still require sourcing. You do have a decent source; we'll see if others consider it adequate.--SPhilbrickT 14:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Please un-delete the Mars Lasar page

This page was deleted December 2010 due to lack of outside links and sources. I will be happy to add the sources and links if you will put the page back up. It is for Mars Lasar (I am on the phone with him now). Please put the page back up. Thank you! Pamela Copus Opus27 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion complaint

HE DELETED MY INFORMATION. The actions he took were completely inappropriate. I feel that his information should be deleted as well. Have a nice day you immature individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massaholeachusetts (talk • contribs) 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You too.--SPhilbrickT 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear S. Philbrick,

I created an article on a musician who, although not extremely famous, met the noteriety guidelines, and you deleted it within hours of creation. Should I bother rewriting the article and adding citation or will it just be deleted again?

I love the idea of wikipedia and I have consulted it often in the past, and I fully support the notion of open editing and review but if I make a mistake (and I did not adding the citations) shouldn't I have the chance to fix them before the entire article is deleted? Thanks, --Laird Angus (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize this place can be confusing to newcomers, but you added a comment to the middle of my talk page. I only found it by accident. I'm responding here, because I've already responded on your talk page, and you appear not to have seen it.--SPhilbrickT 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sowa Rigpa

Hi. :) I'm investigating copyright concerns with the article Sowa Rigpa, and I see that you have interacted with it before. I just wanted to let you know that the NIC copyright license is not compatible with CC-By-SA. CC-By-SA requires modification, and their license only authorizes "material being reproduced accurately". Since we can't retain the content as they published it, we can't use it. :/ It's currently blanked to permit the contributor to address it or for usable license to be obtained. I've explained the issue to the contributor, but, again, just thought I should let you know the issue. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think I over-reacted; saw a notice of copyvio, and the license appears to eliminate the copyvio charge, however, I agree that the permission is too restrictive, although the anal part of me doesn't feel quite right calling it a copyright violation. Copying the material is allowed, so the person that copied it is allowed to do so. However, we are not allowed to accept it, as it comes with "baggage". If this sounds like I'm disagreeing with you, that's not my intent; I'm musing out loud. Bottom line, I agree we cannot accept the material. To analogize, if I added a statement of my beliefs on my talk page, and added a notice that no one is allowed to edit my post, I would be told in no uncertain terms that my request was not valid, and someone might insist that I remove the restriction or the entire post would be removed. That would be within the rights, but it wouldn't make my post a copyright violation.--SPhilbrickT 00:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Frat Life Productions

Done! Katharineamy (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Move

Hi, you just moved Max Mosley's application to the European Court of Human Rights to Mosley v United Kingdom per my request, thanks! Could you move the associated talk page too? Regards Bob House 884 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I did that right, let me know if I messed up.--SPhilbrickT 15:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thats good thanks :) Bob House 884 (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Page delete

Apparently you deleted the page Road Weather Information System because it is similar to GPS? As I noted on the discussion page, RWIS is a specialized weather station and has nothing to do with GPS. Can you clarify the thinking behind the deletion? Thanks, Michael —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Sphil. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look shortly. Last week was an intense week, almost no WP, but this week should be back to normal.--SPhilbrickT 11:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fermin Gallegos

Hi Sphilbrick. Regarding Fermin Gallegos, I tagged as G3 the article and all the related articles/templates/categories. I suppose it depends on one's definition of "blatant" but it quite clearly is a hoax so it made sense to delete all the related pages simultaneously. Note that it was already sent to AfD and deleted as G3 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fermin Gallegos). I believe it's blatant enough: we're talking about a 15-year old kid who supposedly has three albums with Sony Records (including one that was certified as gold), owns his own record label and has worked with top-notch producers yet generates 0 relevant hits beyond a MySpace page, a personal page that says "check out my biografy [sic] on Wikipedia" and a YouTube audio clip that will convince you that he should replace his laptop's built-in microphone. Note that the G3 tag I placed on Fermin Gallegos was removed by an anonymous editor. I can send all this to AfD if you think it's the only option but it feels like overkill. Best, Pichpich (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I may have been too casual. I merely glanced at Fermin Gallegos, thought it was a long standing article, and missed you were tagging the whole bunch. Meeting calls, will address after meeting.--SPhilbrickT 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok great. There's a trail of the pages I tagged because of the Twinkle warnings on User talk:ZacAlexis so it will be fairly easy to retag for AfD if you think that's still the best choice. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus, someone untagged Fermin Gallegos before I looked at it. No, I'm fine with CSD, as I said, I didn't see a CSD tag on the main article, and thought you were tagging a template derived from a legitimate article.--SPhilbrickT 13:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA advice to candidates

I've answered your main points on the essay's talk page, and addressed your suggestions. On The potential side project: I think it would be extremely useful for us(either us, the community, or us, you and I) to identify a canon. Pick out 20-30 RfAs to illustrate key points. I'd already thought of doing something like this but considered it to be a longer term exercise and less pressing than getting a basic advice page up and running. I have lots of footnotes in the essay that point to typical examples and diffs. However, I'm still open to the idea and if you have time to go ahead and draw up your 20 - 30 examples, I'll go through them to avoid me duplicating the effort, and I'd probably cherry pick some of the diffs in them too and put the whole into an essay-style wrapper. What do you think?
BTW, just as a matter of interest and remembering our very first early discussions (we've both successfully got the mop since), do you think my essay would have helped you if it ha&d been available at the time? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On the side project, while I'm still interested, it truly is a side project. Your advice to review past RfAs is solid, whether or not we provide guidance, so I see the "projects" as proceeding independently. At such time as we might do the side project, it will be simple to link in to your advice when it happens.

Regarding whether it would have been helpful to read when I decided to go for it, yes, but one of the things that resonated with me is that I did many of the things you suggest. I do see it as a good list of helpful advice; one of the challenges thought, is that it is best read by someone a year away, not a week away.--SPhilbrickT 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lev Berg

The work is called Основы климатологии. It appeared in print in 1927 and was reprinted in 1938. The term "основы" literally translates as "foundations" but may also be translated as "principles". Cheers. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense.--SPhilbrickT 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cross-Harbour Bus Route 914

Yea. Bottom line is that it depends on who looks at it. I'd say that the majority of articles like that will be deleted under A7, but I have not done a study. With my editor hat on, I usually choose a speedy A7 when it seems clear that the article is not notable. The reviewing admin can delete, decline deletion, or if they agree but don't think that they can support the speedy, they can list it as a {{tl:prod}}. I will not be hurt if you decline. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I'm a bit involved in some work stuff, so will look into it later.--SPhilbrickT 18:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

please undelete SwissGroove

Please undelete the SwissGroove article. I would like to rework the article. I am not sure what was on there before so it would be helpful if it was undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaron (talk • contribs) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this something I deleted? I just looked at my last 500 deletions, and I don't see anything by that name.--SPhilbrickT 13:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I found it. Deleted by Chase me ladies last December. Please check with the deleting admin first, if he isn't around, get back to me and I'll look into it.--SPhilbrickT 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

SwissGroove undelete

The original page was Swissgoove. It was renamed to SwissGroove. The SwissGroove page appears to have been deleted by you. If i am wrong forgive my ignorance, I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaron (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, Swissgoove was deleted by Chase me ladies, but SwissGroove by me. I'll take care of it now.--SPhilbrickT 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done It is now at User:Naaron/SwissGroove, where you can work on it.

Failing at my attempt to cite references

I have added the references but the page still has a warning that there aren't any. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Lasar Mars is a friend of mine and I am trying to help him with this. He personally wrote every word on there and the same text appears on his personal web site. Is his personal web site not a considered a reliable source for references? Thank you in advnace for the help!!!!! Opus27 (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

His personal site is almost certainly not considered a reliable site. It is generally allowable for certain types of non-controversial information (how the name is spelled, place of birth, date of birth. etc.)

I will look to see if I can make the references work. You have successfully add a link to the bio. FYI, the message that there are no references is manually added, it does not disappear automatically when you add a reference. In theory, it will be removed when someone later comes along and sees there are references, although our procedures could be improved.--SPhilbrickT 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed one list of tracks, see what I did to fix the other one. However, there are established ways to present tracks. I suggest you look at another musician to see how it is done. If you can't find one, let me know, and I'll point one out.Oops, sorry, not a track listing. This list should be bullets, I'll make the fix.

Much of the material is copy pasted from his website. That is not allowed, even if he gives you permission. It should be rewritten in your own words.

The structure needs work, check out Article Layout.

The reference is working fine, but you will need more references, and some that are from reliable sources --SPhilbrickT 12:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Its me again, I am making a page about Alicia Marek now. I need help making the chart that says all films and television works can you help me? I have a few sources like http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1673976/ http://resumes.actorsaccess.com/aliciarachel

They say alot about this person.

I put the article at User:Stickulus/Alicia Marek

Thanks! Stickulus (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be able to help directly, but I will provide a couple suggestions.

Tables are a royal pain.

I have created some. For example, I created the tables in USA Women's U18 and U19 teams. However, I don't use the wikimarkup myself, I create the table in Excel, then use a tool to convert them to Wikitables. Even then, there's a fair bit of work to get from one to the other.

The problem is that this approach creates a table in a format I select. I can get away with that in articles about women's basketball, because no one established a standard (some exceptions, but I follow them). When it comes to listing film titles and move roles, there are established styles for the tables, as you probably guess, because it looks like you copied part of one.

However, I have never worked on an article about someone in that industry, so haven't learned the standard styles, and never plan to.

What you can do:

Check out Help:Table

In fact, the tool I use is the first one in the list in Help:Table#External_links

If nothing else, that will give you some insight into how tables work.

My next suggestion is related to one you may have partially tried - find another article with such a table, and copy the entire code, then make whatever changes are needed. It looks like you grabbed the beginning of the code, but I think it would be easier if you grabbed an entire table. Pick on that is too long, as it is easier to remove rows than to add rows.

Another possibility is to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, find one of the editors who hangs out there, and ask them for help. They may be able to help you directly or point you to someone who can. Someone there must know how to fill out one of those tables and can help.

If that doesn't work, post a question at the help desk. They are very prompt, and while they are more apt to point you to resources, than actually do the work, some might jump in and help with the specific task. You can go to Help desk and look for "If you can't find an answer, click here to ask a new question"--SPhilbrickT 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WIF-LA

Creator (who has COI issues) notified. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--SPhilbrickT 01:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:CSD nomination

Well I've notified the user but it seems that someone beat you to it and removed the page. Probibly best because the page was a bit of a wreck of coding compared to the other one. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised, it was a mess, but I like to let people know before I delete something, so thanks for the notification.--SPhilbrickT 12:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 12:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

can you undelete the my article?

it was deleted 21:40, 25 May 2011 I am trying to write an English article on Piguaquan master Wang Zhihai. Few English references on Pigua masters exist. I am trying to link to him on the Piguaquan page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haozwang618 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I moved the article to User:Haozwang618/Wang Zhihai. It needs references, particularly in support of Notability. Please do not edit the red link in Piguaquan to point to a user subpage; wait until the article is sufficiently improved that it can be moved back into main space.--SPhilbrickT 12:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 13:51, 29 May 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 ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Europa-Institut

Hello, I made a mistake, I put the tag for removal into talk page instead of the page itself. Can you please repair that? I mean, move the article from talk to article page? Thank you very much. Sorry for the confusion.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe there was no talk page at the beginning, so I think that it is all done ok now. Once more thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, good. Glad to help. --SPhilbrickT 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Mephistophelian's talk page.
Message added 13:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Meph^talk 13:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Howard M. Guttman

Dear Sphilbrick:

Several months ago, you were very helpful to me when I was trying to create an article for Howard Guttman. A few weeks ago, the article was declared an orphan. I have been trying to de-orphan it, and have some good ideas, but have run into difficulties.

I went into an article on Frances Hesselbein because Howard Guttman contributed a chapter to a book edited by Frances, and it is listed in her article. I listed Howard and all the others authors who contributed chapters, some of whom are very well known in the field of management development. First, I tried to highlight Howard's name and create a link to his page. I got a message saying that the page doesn't exist. I then highlighted the names of several other notable authors, including Jim Champy (James A. Champy), Noel Tichy, and Dave Ulrich. In each case, I was told that the wiki page did not exist, although I had just visited it and copied the URL. I would like to create links from this list not only to Howard's Wiki page, but to these others.

Am I doing something wrong? Can you help?

Thank you very much, Dale Dalecorey (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will look into it shortly.--SPhilbrickT 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you did wrong. I just successfully wikilinked Howard M. Guttman. I'll do one more, and try to describe exactly what I did. Perhaps you could try again, and tell me exactly what you did, and between us, we can figure out what you did wrong.--SPhilbrickT 16:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just wikilinked Noel M. Tichy. Steps

1. Click on the edit button next to the section,
2. Highlight the name with the mouse
3. click on the Wiklink icon in the editing toolbar(if you have one, if not see below)
4. add an edit summary e.g. "wikilink"
5. Click on preview button to make sure it looks OK
6. Click on Save page button.

You might not have the editing toolbar. If so:

1. Click on the edit button next to the section,
2. add left square brackets [[ before the name
3. add right square brackets ]] after the name
4. add an edit summary e.g. "wikilink"
5. Click on preview button to make sure it looks OK
6. Click on Save page button.

Dear SPhilbrick: You are the best! Thank you so much for creating the links. I reviewed your directions, and successfully created a link to the page of another chapter writer in the Hesselbein article, Edgar Shein. I did have the toolbar, but I was clicking on the icon of a chain, then inserting the URL of the Wiki page there. I didn't know you could just type the word wikilink into the edit summary. I'm learning slowly! Thanks again, Dale 66.82.9.54 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - building 7 deletion

I've responded to your message on my talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#My_preliminary_observation_on_the_911_conspiracy_issue Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied again on my talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've replied again. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Right For User:Stickulus

On the page that you can see if you qualify for rollback rights it says you can ask an administrator for these rights. Thats why I came to you. I know you from working on a few articles together and I know you can help me with whatever I need to qualify for rollback rights. A little about myslef is that I have been using Wikipedia actively for quite a long time, a good 4 years. I just made this account recently since I did not want my IP address to be shown publicly and I wanted to be able to work on more Wikipedia pages rather than those I was limited to without an account. I have only deleted a few vandalisations I plan on removing many more in the future. One thing that would for sure help me would be Rollback Rights. With Rollback Rights I Could Remove Vandalism from articles with ease and get far more done in a day rather than having to do it manually. I hope you can hep me with this and Thank You!

Yes, I have the authority, but granting rights is not an area where I've specialized. There are some rough guidelines, I don't know if they are written, but you can infer them by looking at the recent requests for rollback in Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions. Note that most who received it had a 1000 or more edits. Note Qantasplanes did not get it, with 650 edits. The key is not so much the raw edit count, but the number of vandalism edits.

It is good form, when doing any edit, to use an edit summary. If you ever decide to try for admin, this is something people will look at. Anything less than 100% for major edits is cause for questions. You are at 12%. You should start by making you use an edit summary for every edit. (I help make sure this happens by going to user preferences, editing, and clicking the box that warns me if I forget to enter an edit summary). When you are using edit summaries regularly, make sure your vandalism edits either have the word "vandalism" in them, or use "rv" for revert vandalism. Then it will be easy to see how often you are reverting vandalism. I looked at your edits, and didn't see any marked at vandalism. I'm not saying there aren't any, just that it isn't easy to find them.

If you look at the list of people who asked for rollback, you'll see that the most common reason for turning it down is not much evidence of reverting vandalism. That's all it is good for, but it is easy to revert vandalism without, it so I'll give you the same advice that has been given others. Do 50-100 reversions of vandalism, make sure they are valid, make sure the edit summary indicates it is vandalism, and ask again.

By the way, do you see the note on your user page talking about vandalism? It is in a box, and floats off the page because you started it with a space. Remove the space, and it will look better.

Good luck and keep editing.--SPhilbrickT 12:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips, I will be sure to take them all into consideration and I will begin devandalising pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickulus (talk • contribs) 05:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Stabile

Hi, I think the page was previously deleted can you check? It could fall into G4? I checked the history of the article the first edit here was copyed from the other website here, then the bot tagged it he re-edited to change some of the article. Could this article fall into the recently created articles for speedy deletion A10? --Vic49 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was deleted before, but by Prod, not AfD nor CSD, so I don't think G4 applies. There is. You mentioned a10, but that would apply if there is another existing article covering the same subject, which doesn't seem to apply. I'm going to follow up with a note to JamesBWatson, who deleted the earlier version. I have to go on a business trip, so may not be able to follow up promptly.--SPhilbrickT 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually CSD G4 applies only to pages deleted as a result of deletion discussions, and excludes previous speedy deletions, as well as PRODs. (That is irrelevant in this case, but I thought it worth clarifying to avoid future mistakes.) The fact that it may well have been copied back to Wikipedia from another site which copied the Wikipedia article is of no importance: what matters is that it is a repost of a Wikipedia article which was deleted by PROD. It seems to me that the person who reposted it has in effect belatedly challenged the PROD, which they have every right to do. There is the question of attribution of contributions, which can be dealt with easily by restoring the deleted history of the article, which I shall do. That will leave the question of whether the reasons given for deletion in the PROD are valid. Either the editor who placed the original PROD or anyone else can take the article to AfD if they think those reasons are valid. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point that G4 doesn't apply to prior CSD. I know it didn't apply to prior Prod's and did to AfD, but didn't think through CSD. It's mostly a moot point, clearly in this case, but in general, if an article was properly deleted via CSD, the original reason still applies, and there's no reason to use G4.

Sounds like we are in the "right" position G12 isn't appropriate, and someone can AfD is they so choose.--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

StickerYou

Not sure why our page was deleted. A previous "deletion" tag was refuted and no consensus was reached to allow deletion of the page. Not sure why, just a few days later, my page was deleted. Stickers fan (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason it was proposed for speedy deletion is that it appeared to be a blatant advertisement, rather than a proper encyclopedic article. I agreed with the assessment so deleted it. I just took a look again, to see if I was too hasty, and I still feel it qualifies for deletion.

If you would like more information,let me know; I'll start by pointing out that it had no qualifying references. (A reference to the company website is acceptable in some cases, but does not "count" in terms of establishing notability.)--SPhilbrickT 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So, what can I change so that the page no longer seems like advertisement, and does meet the qualifications to establish notability and be considered a valid page? Stickers fan (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Notability, you'll see one of the keys is to find references satisfying the following (see the link for more details):

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

--SPhilbrickT 16:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

re Theatre Bizarre

Thanks for your comments and decision. I am just getting started on new page patrolling. Greenmaven (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Help With An Article

Hello My Name Is Stickulus. I Would Greatly Appreciate it if you would glance at and maybe even give me a couple of pointers or help me on an article I am Making. I Believe I Am about 3/4 done. you can see the article at User:Stickulus/Diandra Luker —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

I can't at the moment, but I can find some time later in the day. I'll fix the broken reference. In the meantime, think about Wikipedia:Notability.--SPhilbrickT 12:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Midtown Village

There are articles about malls and shopping centers all over Wikipedia. What's unnotable about this one? --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. What is notable about this one? If you can point out another article about another nondescript mall that isn't notable, propose it for deletion.--SPhilbrickT 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a very brief review to see some examples of Malls that are in Wikipedia. As you may know, their existence isn't a valid reason to keep Midtown Village, but it is a starting point for comparison.

The first one I found (by searching for the word Mall" is Queen Street Mall. It has 26 million visitors a year, and the article has a number of references (not enough, IMO), one of which is clearly a reliable source. I think this one could use some help from an editor, there should be more references.

The second one is Northgate Mall (Seattle). I see eleven references, and a bibliography with over 15 items listed. This one earned a tag noting it needs more references.

In contrast, MidTown Village consisted of three sentences, no assertions of notability and zero references.--SPhilbrickT 20:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It might have had all the things you were looking for if you hadn't deleted it two hours after I started the stub. I guess we'll never know now. --Ttownfeen (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want it in your user space, where you can work on it without attracting the deletionists, let me know, although I moved a dozen such articles in the last few days and most have not bothered to improve them. I'm an optimist, though, if you're the exception, let me know.--SPhilbrickT 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. -Ttownfeen (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See User:Ttownfeen/Midtown Village --SPhilbrickT 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale issue

Here is the rationale for a new image I have chosen. To make things easier, I have simply placed it on your talk page instead of the article's disscussion page. Also, I have not uploaded the image yet. (There is a link to it below) Hope it is okay, but if things happen to be wrong, please tell me.

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been out, just returned; will respond in the morning.--SPhilbrickT 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that is fine. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not going to be happy with my response, but I'll emphasize that while I know a little about Non-free rationales, it's isn't an area I've worked in a lot, so I urge you to get other opinions.

Please understand that free content is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. There are some who would just as soon have no non-free content at all. The allowance of non-free content is a concession that there is a fair use exemption in the law; however, the clear goals of Wikipedia are to use it as sparingly as possible. This is one of the reasons that you are running into some objections to the inclusion. It isn't the case that anyone is arguing an additional picture doesn't make it a nicer article, it probably does. The issue is that the use of any non-free content needs to be justified, and it is especially hard to justify more than one example in an article.

In the case of Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, there is on non-free image illustrating what the owls look like. You would like to add another one, showing what the owls look like. You've pointed out that the image you wish to add illustrates characters other than those in the info box image, but in my opinion, that isn't a strong enough reason.

I'm trying to think of another example where more than one image would be justified. I can think of two potential example,s but neither article precisely supports my point. In the movie, The Wizard of Oz, there are parts of the movie that are in black-and-white and parts in color. It seems plausible that someone could argue one needs an example of each to illustrate the point. (That said, most people understand what it means to be in black-and-white, so perhaps it could be explained in text). The article The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) did not do this. There are two non-free images, one happens to be in black-and-white, but I don't see that as part of the rationale. In the movie The Matrix, there are two different worlds, and it might be argued that images of both are warranted. Again that didn't happen in the article, so I'm not able to illustrate my point as easily as I would like.

I take what may be considered a hard line with respect to the use of images. I'd prefer that we arrange with copyright owners for release of some images, as I think they would find it in their best interest. It might make sense for you to talk to someone else who has experience in this area; if you don't know how to identify someone, I don't either, but I bet I could figure it out.--SPhilbrickT 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Sphilbrick. I really appreciate your help and I will see what else I can do about this problem, good luck with future edits :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Monkeys 9711 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)