User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Bad G8 of a non-trivial talk page of a merged and redirected article

Hi Sphilbrick. Coming here from an MfD. A deletion of yours has been mentioned, Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954, "23:48, 18 June 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)"

I don't believe that G8 applies to a page redirected somewhere, and further, deletion is inappropriate where there is a history behind the redirect (it was merged), and especially where the edit to redirect is justified with reference to the talk page "18:46, 20 May 2011 Farpointer (talk | contribs) (27 bytes) (This was supposed to be merged back on April 22, according to the long discussion on the Horror comics Talk Page. Don't know why no one has done it until now, so I'm volunteering to do it, according to the agreement on the Talk page.)"[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

St Andrew's

Thank you! Amandajm (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello Sphilbrick, I just wanted to let you know that, per this request, I've just userfied This Week in Tennis, because I think it's an article that might have potential; however, I've informed the author that he should contact you before moving the page back. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Hope it happens. I've userfied several articles in the last week, not one has yet had any meaningful progress, so while I support the approach, it has been disappointing in terms of results.--SPhilbrick T 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Capucho

Hi there SPHIL, VASCO from Portugal,

thank you for your help regarding this page move, i think it's more accurate (your summary was 100% what i would have written). However, given that "CAPUCHO" is a term that can lead to other interpretations (monkey, friar), could you reinstate to the original "Capucho (footballer)"? If not, it's cool too.

Keep up the good work, regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 18:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsk tsk

[2] Thanks for chipping in, anyway :) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to show that you weren't the only one thinking it was rude - however, I think I know you well enough that you aren't losing sleep over it, so I'm not planning to extend the drama - however, I'll note that saying something appear rude to me is not something that can be argued with - it may not appear rude to you someone else, but unless I'm blatantly lying, if I say something sounds rude to me, it sounds rude to me.--SPhilbrick T 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well quite. If I could be bothered, the response to that IP would be, "So how come you were able to say authoritiatively above that it wasn't rude if it's just a matter of opinion?" but that would be a desperately boring road to go down :P ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 22:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Great info, Sphilbrick

In reference to the Don Brown wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don_Brown_(Author)&action=edit&redlink=1)that you flagged for speedy deletion, the opening paragraph is the author's public bio, which can be found here: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Authors/Author.htm?ContributorID=BrownDon&QueryStringSite=Zondervan. Should I have simply noted that the bio could be found at that external link instead of including the copy on the page? And, if the offer still stands, I would love help in creating wikilinks for the professional life section. Many thanks. 1zigmont! (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You call it a "public" bio, but it is still under copyright.

(As an aside, the article was flagged because of the wording on this site which means either Harper Collins or Zondervan has violated the other entities copyright, or one has done a poor job of reporting permission. However, that doesn't concern us.)

Generally speaking, material in a Wikipedia article should be written "from scratch" not copied from anyplace else; certainly not from material under copyright, but typically not even if the material is freely licensed. Why? Because the material was written for a particular audience, and not usually an encyclopedia. The style and format is unlikely to match that appropriate for an encyclopedia. (There are some rare exceptions, which I won’t go into unless you want more information, but they don't apply to this situation.)

A a minor point, when you add a note to a talk page, it should go at the bottom. Just click on the "new section" and it will that automatically (unless you are adding to an existing section.)--SPhilbrick T 17:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to User:1zigmont!/Don Brown (Author) and started cleaning it up.--SPhilbrick T 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted an article I was working on.

Hi, at 15:28, 23 June 2011, you deleted the article "List of Ruby learning resources". I see you do a lot of deletions, but I believe that there are specific reasons why the Ruby resources should be listed, somehow. Some other editors on the Ruby also think so, but they present these resources directly from the Ruby in a biased fashion. What are the options to solve this situation? (Btw. your deletion just interrupted my work on a better version.) Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it, as it squarely met the criteria. Wikipedia generally takes a dim view of link farms. That said, there is some value in providing a list of resources (although whether it fits squarely within the goals of Wikipedia isn't perfectly clear to me.)

Keeping in mind that while Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping, one option is to look to see if lists of resources are available in other instances. For example, i think it would be equally of value to provide a list of resources for R or SAS. So is that done? If so how?

I don't know about SAS or R. I'm not gonna claim that Ruby is more important or anything. It changes a lot in a nasty fashion, that's all. That's the one real reason why the proposed list should exist.

One option might be to create the list as a standalone web page, which might be viewed as an acceptable link within the article Ruby (but I'd advise getting consensus before going to that effort, in case it isn't acceptable.--SPhilbrick T 17:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for politeness. What I aimed for was a 'pro reviewed, less biased, up-to-date' page. Only WP can ensure that. Second choice is Rubydoc. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A list of resources seems more relevant to the person interested in "how to" rather than "tell me about". You might consider that wikihow is a better place for such a list.--SPhilbrick T 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

re: ShopSquad

Sphilbrick, I must not have formatted the references correctly. I put them at the bottom of the page under a "Notes" heading, which is what the instructions I was following had said to do (there are so many dift sets of instructions on here!). Hmmm...looks like I needed to follow the References link you sent? Can I repost? The sources were:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/social-shopping-startup-shopsquad-lands-1-25m-in-funding-from-heavy-hitters/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-20036113-250.html http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/24/shopsquad-launch/ http://www.zippycart.com/ecommerce-news/2215-shopsquad-matches-shoppers-with-experts.html http://www.pitchengine.com/shopsquad/shopsquad-raises-125-million-in-angel-funding-/134241/

and a couple others.

AZ123 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)AZ123

Article is now at User:AZ123/ShopSquad I'll fix a couple of the references, see if you can use what I did, along with the page I linked to see how to fix the others. More would be helpful, it is still very marginal.--SPhilbrick T 20:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Regarding a new page

Hey there Sphilbrick, My recent contributions have been in actors (mainly broadway) who are also musicians. My next project I chose to work on is for Broadway star Malea McGuinness, but I just noticed there there has already been a page by that name which you deleted in the past, though I'm not sure when. Could you give me some pointers on why that page was deleted? I'd like to make sure I do it right. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntergs (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy the entire text of the article:

Malea McGuinness is a singer songwriter who owns her own record label.

There were also some embedded links, presumably to some of her work, but the decision about importance is based upon the main text.

It can happen (relatively rarely) that an article is deleted and will get deleted automatically if recreated. That isn't the case here.

If you create an article looking exactly like the above, it will go, but if you make a proper article, the prior history should not be an issue.--SPhilbrick T 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

K_G_Suresh

Hi, I noticed that the IP Editor of this article un-did your revisions, so I reverted them. They've now reverted me again and so I'm unsure how to proceed. Clearly they are not reading the edit summaries and therefore not discussing on the talk page. I'll put a note on their talk page pointing them directly at the discussion. Regards CaptRik (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Notified at User_talk:122.160.70.87#Please_stop_reverting_K_G_Suresh. CaptRik (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The IP is the subject of the article; but as a new editor, may not even know how to check messages. Still, it is proper to send the messages.--SPhilbrick T 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick

Thank you for reviewing the article I created and thanks for assisting me in the editing and etc! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyneon_(musician) Jamesallen2 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help.--SPhilbrick T 14:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Combining references

Thanks for your assistance. -- And Rew 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in the middle of posting an oops. Sorry.--SPhilbrick T 15:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So many colors

I do see plenty of inconsistensies, but I'm not skilled enough to know what the correct values for each color are, so generally I fix vandalism and insert missing symbols to make the table look at least halfway decent :). — Glenn L (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure whether you arrived as a color expert or a table expert )--SPhilbrick T 17:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Flight .XXX

I removed the copied material, replacing it with my own phrasing. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Very easy to do when the infobox, etc, doesn't change. No worries. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WUWA (Wroclaw)

Hi Sphilbrick. Last week with my colleagues we wrote few articles about 16 most important places in our town - Wroclaw. One of them was WUWA, which is a 80 years old exhibition, the symbol of 1930 architecture. You can also find an article about in on polish wikipedia: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUWA

Could you please restore the article?

Mateusz kus (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Done It is now at User:Mateusz kus/WUWA (Wroclaw), where you can work on it to make it acceptable for the main page.

The main thing needed is a reference to a reliable source, which will help assert the notability.

You should also add captions to the images.--SPhilbrick T 11:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Wunder order: thanks, and a question

Thank you for your review of the Isaac Wunder order page. Much appreciated.

On my talk page, where you inform me of your review, you mention some comments by Ukexpat about it. For the life of me, I can't find them! At the risk of asking a question which might earn me a smart and embarrassed self-administered d'oh-style slap to the side of the head, could you point me to where you saw them? I can't find them on the article's talk page or my talk page, nor on the Request for Feedback pages (I don't think those are used for replies, but I'm too new to this to be sure). I wouldn't expect them to be on his talk page, but I checked there anyway, and they aren't. (He did make some comments on the Eric O'Neill article I'm aware of, but I'm presuming you're referring to the Isaac Wunder order one.) Thanks. Rhsimard (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it took me a couple minutes to find them, and I'm supposed to know what I'm doing. I responded at your talk page, and copied the comments there.--SPhilbrick T 21:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

You've got a few messages here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Since 10.28.2010 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded.--SPhilbrick T 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

over react?

Hi, are you a WR apologist? Just wanna make our positions clear. I said to WR: take down all private info as soon as it is posted; ban user who posts. You said "Let's not over react". Where is the over reaction in my post? – Ling.Nut 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a longish thread at Malleus's talk in which we seem to have sorted out several things. Cheers. – Ling.Nut 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarified, (my error) on your page.--SPhilbrick T 11:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks!

Thanks for your guidance at the help page! Hurricanefan25 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ourinternet

Hello,

Can you please let me know why my newly created page devoted to Our Internet has been deleted the second time? It was first deleted, but then restored by Athaenara yesterday after our communication. I thought this is good addition to a Web hosting section. And all of the pages there contained very similar information. I'm planning to add more content to it with the time passing.

Thanks,

204.62.13.4 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it right now.--SPhilbrick T 11:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the page again. In my opinion the original deletion was correct, and I don't see it as a particular close call. I read the response of Athaenara, which did not go into detail about the reason for restoration; I read it more as a - hey I'll give you a chance to work on it" more than "oops, I was wrong". However, that's my interpretation, and I've asked Athaenara if she would like to elaborate.

I'm willing to restore the page to user space, where you can work on the shortcomings. If you are willing to do that, I'll work on the restoration and provide some feedback/. If you think it is ready as is, it wouldn't make sense to do so.--SPhilbrick T 12:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Kindly restore the page then in the user space so as I can work on the shortcomings before it goes live. You opinion on them are also very welcome!

Bdgls (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Will follow up with comments on your talk page--SPhilbrick T 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Will be looking forward for your feedback then as I'm new to Wikipedia and it's still hard for me to meet all the criterea...

Bdgls (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick, did you have a chance to look through our talk at my user:talk page? Thanks,

Bdgls (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Checked

Alright. Thanks, I 'll try to find some info. A comment by a person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My talk

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning removal

You asked me to "ding" you if no substantial action has happened on the Mary Cunningham Agee article. This is a friendly (and urgent) request to please bring your expertise to this article at least to the extent that you feel comfortable removing the warning banner. We can refine this article in the weeks ahead with a little guidance from you ... and input from any who is interested. I would appreciate your offering the leadership that is needed for this article to be acceptable now. From there, we and others can make it even better. Thanks so much.Omnibus170 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? You are quite new, so perhaps you aren't familiar with talk pages? I've done a lot, expected to hear from you but heard nothing. Please go to Talk:Mary Cunningham Agee, where you can see the list of 17 issues that need discussion. I started discussing each of them in tern, expecting you to comment, but I heard nothing. Perhaps you haven't seen them.--SPhilbrick T 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Hi SPhil. You may find this discussion interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out to me, I probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise. BTW, apologies for signing up for the RFA task force and not delivering. I did spend a decent chunk of a day reading over the talk force reports, but to be honest, I was struggling with the organization, and may not have made any comments. However, my main reason for not doing much is my current interest is doing more about the fact that we don't welcome newbies very well. I'm not part of the welcoming committee, but I've been active (on and off) at the Feedback page. I don't know what to do next, but I think it is a higher priority (for me) than RfA reform.) Interestingly, the link you provided fits in well with my area of interest.--SPhilbrick T 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what it's like having several plates spinning at major policy reforms ;) I knew that RFA reform would be slow, but the main thing is that the project has a structured approach, rather than the bar-room banter that goes on at WT:RfA, partly because it now has a huge base of well researched stats and extrapolations. In fact, in recent weeks WT:RfA has been all but dead, but the problematic issues at RfA still persist and we've just lost another industrious editor who although perhaps still a tad immature for adminship, was an excellent contributor and project manager. Do stay on the RfA task force, and at least chime in when we get to voting on things to propose to the broader community. I've also been working a bit on welcome templates and uw-warnings - if you're interested see this and perhaps you can chime in with some help; the people from that project are not being very forthcoming. They are great at template syntax, but are not experts at the drafting of psychologically apt messages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A sunflower

	A sunflower
	A sunflower for you. Thanks for making the time and effort to help. Span (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of "Realms of Trinity"

Hello Sphilbrick. I know i am not the original author of said article. In fact, the original author has resigned. As i am part of the same team i decided to try this a single last time before i seriously start to doubt the wikipedian 'spirit of collaboration': It was/is his/our first article on wikipedia and it is really frustrating to see how an article vanishes within a day without even giving constructive criticism or tips. This is, in my opinion, no way to welcome a new member. After the article got deleted for the first time we tried to add justification to the talk page. Yet it got deleted without as much as a single word why the justification is not valid. I do not have the feeling our arguments were even looked at to begin with, it rather seems that you just flat-out ignored them. That doesn't feel like collaboration to me. Maybe we didn't reason clearly enough before, i will do that now: - Content-wise the article dealt with a game world (persistent world) of the Neverwinter Nights 2 game. It described its history and other relations. If the wording sounded like advertising, we'd gladly accepted feedback and changed it. However, - there are TWO very similar articles that deal with other persistent worlds for exactly the same game, The Known Lands and Dasaria. Both have been in wikipedia for years now. How come they are neither falling under the criteria for speedy deletion nor are in some other way considered to be deleted while Realms of Trinity is deleted faster than anyone could justify/react to it although all of them are basically of the same type? Now i would like to hear, how and why was the article Realms of Trinity so fundamentally different (apart from the wording which we could have changed if we knew how) that it had to be deleted without even a second glance at it?

Makes me think this whole G11 speedy deletion stuff is just a matter of guesswork and personal preference. GB88 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now.--SPhilbrick T 13:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Realms of Trinity. To be blunt, it is an absolute mess. While I understand that new editors find this place confusing, it looks to me like tit was cobbled together by someone who hadn't looked at another article.

One of the notes on the article says, "This layout was adapted from the Nintendo taskforce". On one hand, I very much support the approach of borrowing from existing formats to create an article, but the format was for a Taskforce, not an article. It contained userboxes, which never ever appear in an article. It had a "Special Thanks" section, which never belongs in an article. In short, it looks like it was put together by someone who hadn't looked at another article in Wikipedia, and was just throwing things together. To give an analogy, suppose you wanted to build a car, and rather than build the car from scratch, you decided to go to a junkyard, and assemble a car from parts you found there. So far, not a bad decision. But if you grab a bicycle frame, weld it to a stroller, and put in a bus engine backwards, would you be surprised if someone told you that wasn't a car?

Writing brand-new articles is not easy. Many successful editors on Wikipedia started by making edits to other articles, then learning enough to create an article form scratch. over 99% of editors who attempt to start by creating a new article fail.

Yes, Wikipedia can be a tough place for new editors, and we don't provide as much help as I would like. If you look at the post just above this, you will see that I have identified this as an area of priority for me. We need to do a better job of helping new editors, but that also includes helping them understand that it isn't easy to start form scratch. I have some standard wording I developed, I'll copy it to your talk page. --SPhilbrick T 14:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On a more positive note, I looked at The Known Lands (TKL). The referencing is weak, but other than that it looks OK. (I have absolutely no interest in the subject, so I may not be able to look at it critically.) If Realms of Trinity looked something like that, I would not expect it to be deleted speedily. In fact, if you create a version in a user subpage (ask me if you want me to start it for you), and let me know when you think it is ready, I'll support it (which isn't a promise it won't get deleted, but means it won't happen so quickly, and without further comment.) One note on timing, I'm expected to be away form the internet over the next three days, so I may not be able to do something until I return.)--SPhilbrick T 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thank you for the response and the feedback. This is something we can work with. Revising the article might take a few days however, as i don't have too much time at the moment. GB88 (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Help Me, Unfair Banning of User:Stickulus

First of all I want this person to stop deleting this message. I, Stickulus was unfairly banned due to the actions of others. I use a public computer at my colleges library. Apparently other peope at my school use Wikipedia, but not in the right way.I didn't want to make another account so I was hoping if you could unban User:Stickulus instead since he already has a head start at edits, 250+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphartan (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately , I have zero experience in dealing with sockpuppets, real or alleged. A checkuser confirmed it, I am not a checkuser, and frankly, don't know enough about the situation to intrude. If you do not know who to contact, well, neither do I but I can figure it out if you do not know.--SPhilbrick T 01:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this accurate Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stickulus?--SPhilbrick T 01:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With all due respects to the enquirer, in view of the circumstances I will be asking for a Check user verification of this new account. Quack. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stickulus, Sphartan quacked too loud. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kith Meng

Hi Sphilbrick,

Please, elaborate your point on the photo for Meng's new page

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersgoldpan (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page--SPhilbrick T 11:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Beebuk

Hi! Just found your note. Many thanks for your kind words. It's a relief to know I haven't been (just) a thorn in your side. All your help has been much appreciated. (And better luck with new editors in the future!) --Beebuk 02:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kith Meng & Royal Group: Update 2.0

Hi Sphilbrick Following your feedback and the feedback and assistance of discospinster I sought to simplify & clean the Kith Meng & Royal Group (not live) User:Petersgoldpan/The Royal Group pages. Is this now more appropriate? I cannot live the Royal Group User:Petersgoldpan/The Royal Group page myself

Cheers, Petersgoldpan

Yes, I agree. Kith Meng looks fairly good, but the Royal Group isn't yet ready.--SPhilbrick T 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Editing Wave contemporary jewellery

Hi Sphil. Far be it for me to doubt your judgement (we all have different personal criteria), but we just had an edit conflict. I had declined the CSD - and notified the tagger, because I felt there were sufficient claims to notability even if not sourced. Worse is, I left this message on the creator's talk page. What shall we do? Undelete and give it a second chance? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Sphil, my bad, I didn't realise that what I was looking at was a recreation of the one you had deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if you and I have different criteria for deleting articles, but I'm also very willing to restore an article if an editor intends to make a good faith attempt to improve it, so I suspect the end results are quite close.

I'm not really following your follow up note. I did delete the article, because I thought it was a complete mess, and very spammy in the version I saw. However, that doesn't mean that an article cannot be written if the subject is notable. I am totally supportive of restoring the page to user space if the editor accepts that it is not close to acceptable as is, and wants to work on it.

However, I see no discussion at the editors talk page. I am slightly concerned about the warning by Abhishek191288. It sounds like the warning one might give if the editor is repeatedly removing CSD templates, but I don't that the editor did that. I wonder if some positive feedback to the editor is in order.--SPhilbrick T 11:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Unreal Accusation! Leopard Capital

Hi Sphilbrick,

User:Urbanrenewal accused me of being a "sockpuppet" (which I'm not?)...his complaint is filed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton My response to him (listed also on User:Urbanrenewal's own page) is below for you to consider - can you please advise how I defend against his accusation? UR doesn't even submit evidence for why he's accused me of being a "sockpuppet" ? double you t f

Response to Urbanrenewal's accusation, start

Hi User:Urbanrenewal,

I joined the Private Equity Task-force to begin a similar history to yourself but concentrating on the ASEAN region and Cambodia in particular, given its increasing popularity and under appreciated status. Towards this end I made the Kith Meng and The Royal Group pages and sought to tidy up numerous others relating to the country's largest business groups, and in doing so I was lead to Leopard Capital, on which I then spent a considerable amount of time, tidying things up and imbuing a more neutral tone whilst removing dead links and/or links leading to the company's website, simultaneously verifying the claims of the entry (and, also removing claims that weren't verifiable). I thought, like helpful administrative User:Discospinster had done previously, I would if anything be thanked for my work? From the perspective of detailing commerce-centric Cambodian based networks, it's fairly practical to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund -- and no, I'm not connected to Leopard Capital: that is my point -- I'm sure you'd agree. That to claim otherwise (that is that it's not fair practice to overview Cambodia's first and biggest private equity fund, particularly given the country's small-sized population) would risk inhibiting the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias vis-a-vis the already lacklustre coverage of Cambodia's economy, and say be arguably comparable to not mentioning Wall Street when overviewing America's economy, seems reasonably obvious to your truly.

Indeed, Cambodia's business sector is already under-represented on Wikipedia, and I have recently listed it under the 'Expansion Needed' heading on the WikiProject Cambodia page.

Response to Urbanrenewal's accusation, finish

After my amendments, subtractions and additions the Leopard Capital listing (I think) is pretty neutral in tone? Can someone please clarify how this is not the case, citing examples of what they consider more neutral? Since being accused I've checked numerous other Wikipedia's for big private equity firms and, if anything, Leopard Capital seems more neutral and less self-interested than some of the bigger names in the private equity field covered by Wikipedia?

Sphilbrick, please advise how I better defend against User:Urbanrenewal's unfair accusation? He doesn't even mention what his accusation of me is based on? The only semi, potentially plausible suggestion I can think of for accusing me is that I made many numerous amendments: but I'm new and a perfectionist, and actually enjoy the editing process!? Hence my repeated efforts "to get it right" ... I aim to continue contributing to the Wikipedia community and aspire to become a moderator in the future: this, basically, is why I care to have taken off my account URs accusations

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Jane Was Here - a novel by Sarah Kernochan taken down for copyright infringement

Re: 18:16, 14 July 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Jane Was Here - a novel by Sarah Kernochan" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/k/sarah-kernochan/jane-was-here.htm)

The above website is using copy they took from a pitch letter I created. I'm not even sure how they got this document. While I may not be able to write this article myself, I would just like it to go on record that I did not infringe on anyone's copyright. I am the original author of the text in question. Yogininyc (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)yogininyc

Thanks for posting that. For what it is worth, and I'm speaking only for myself, I delete a lot of articles using the copyvio rule. I haven't kept count but it is many hundreds. They fall into different categories. While a few may be intentional, a large number are editors who simply don't know the rules, or know them vaguely and don't realize we take them seriously. IN other case, am virtually certain the editor was the ultimate source of the material, so they aren't taking credit for someone else's work, but because we allow anonymous editing, we can't permit it, partly to protect the owner of the copyright. I'll guess you are in the latter category. While I take copyright very seriously, I almost always assume that the "violation" is inadvertent in some way, until there's evidence otherwise (serial abusers, who continue after clear warnings). Putting myself in your shoes, if one of my first edits was deleted due to a copyright violation, I'd be mortified, and wondering if I were being added to a list of "bad" people. I'll assure you that isn't the case, again in my eyes, but I think others would says the same. (I'm struggling to find exactly the right words, because it is simultaneously not a big deal (with respect to you) and a very big deal, in terms of how we have to police against copyright violations. If I haven't made myself clear, please don't hesitate to ask me to explain, but you have nothing to worry about.--SPhilbrick T 01:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick. This was my very first Wikipedia post ever, and I WAS mortified. I imagined being on that list of "bad people". I even went so far as to imagine the Wikipedia police showing up at my house in the dark of night dragging me off to Guantanamo Bay. Thank you for giving us the benefit of the doubt, and I guess it's better to have Wikipedia be vigilant instead of let things slide.Yogininyc (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Yogininyc

Yogininyc, if you are the author, you need to send an e-mail to our OTRS system and you will be given instructions to 1) prove you hold the copyright, and 2) release it under an appropriate license. Whether or not you can post it here, due to conflict of interest issues is another matter altogether.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)