User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 3

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Duologue

Do you know any good arbitrators for this duologue here? --Senra (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are some interesting aspects to this question. I'm hampered by being rather uninterested in the concept of categories as they apply to WP - despite using them, but I do have a general interest in the concept of categorization. I'll also note that, while I don't know Nyttend personally, I've encountered the name quite often. I won't respnd immediately, as I would like to do some digging. Prod me if I don't respond in a day or two - I trust this is not time-urgent. I was planning to go away for the weekend (it's a holiday in the US) but I deiced to stay home and work on Wikipedia.--SPhilbrick T 15:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not let me stop you from having a good time. Seriously. Go 'shoot the cr*p', or whatever it is you do. The question was not aimed at you helping; rather you finding an arbiter. You seem to know more about wikipedia than I do. It can wait. No worries. --Senra (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for reminding me what you asked - find a third party, not an answer. To that end, check out Wikipedia:Third opinion. I still want to look into it myself.--SPhilbrick T 16:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And uh, maybe I should have checked out the link before passing it along. I see Third Opinion is for disagreements that have reached a standstill - that may be premature in this case.--SPhilbrick T 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue resolved amicably. Go have some fun IRL :) --Senra (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Argggh! What horrible timing! After saying that I had no interest in categories, I realized I have used a couple, one in particular Category:Connecticut articles missing geocoordinate data. Then I thought about what would happen if someone decided to create a subcategory, say Category:Hartford articles missing geocoordinate data, and argued that items should be in one or the other but not both. And that seems wrong. So I was just about to give a good reason why it does make sense to have an item in a category AND a subcategory, and you've gone off and reached an agreement without my help. (I'm remembering a real life incident involving an aunt and uncle who were looking to get a divorce and hired a divorce lawyer. While the paperwork was being filed, they decided they could patch things up - but the divorce lawyer, worried about losing a fee, interceded and made sure they divorced.) Seriously, glad it was resolved.--SPhilbrick T 18:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Battleground atmosphere at ArbCom case

You would think that now that the case is before ArbCom, everyone would be on their best behavior. Instead, the partisan fighting hasn't seemed to have ended. I have half a mind to come up with a list of diff's showing all the bad faith assumptions, uncivil behavior, etc that's going on at the ArbCom workshop and evidence pages. Is there any value in such a list? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on it, but leaning toward no. (Assuming you really wanted to know if it was a good idea to compile such a list—the distinction being, of course there's value in such a list, the question is whether the positive value of the list outweigh possible fallout arising from the compilation.)

First, I've observed the same thing, and was briefly tempted to make a bad Monthly Python joke (this isn't the insult room it's the argument room–actually, I've forgotten exactly how it went, and was too lazy to look it up)

Briefly, I considered whether it should be compiled in a user subpage, and just referenced here, just so it wouldn't be so "in your face". I decided that had not enough merit.

My main point, is that it might be viewed as insulting to the arbitration committee - I imagine Carcharoth responding "c'mom, you didn't think we could figure that out on my own? Give us some credit".

The other reason is that we are both striving to be viewed as not on one side or the other - although I confess you are doing a better job of that than I. While such a list has more value if it comes from someone not fully invested in one side or the other, the very nature of the compilation is likely to sully that reputation. If there aren't identical number of examples from both camps, you will be accused of being secretly in one camp (and very possibly even if the counts are identical). If you point out lack of decorum by user:xyz, they may make it their mission to find some comment by you that could possibly, if you look at it sideways, be construed as incivil, thereby labeling you hypocritical. Arguing that it is not such example would be very tricky.

All that said, it is a cogent observation, and it will be difficult to refrain from making a comment about it at some time.--SPhilbrick T 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Relax. Don't do it. When you want to (...rest of song deleted for decency). Actually, I popped in here for something else. Now what was it? --Senra (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought for a second you were posting in the wrong place, but I see you are in the, uh, right room. Thanks.--SPhilbrick T 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, good points all around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Flesh-hooks

As far as the software is concerned, disambiguation pages are articles. Therefore, all you need to do is to rework the page: instead of listing the items that could be meant by someone who finds the page, discuss what they are and, if necessary, link to examples. It's definitely very simple. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's easy enough.--SPhilbrick T 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

First of all, I want to thank you again for your review; you've been most kind and thorough!
As far as adminship is concerned, I've decided to heed your advice and wait a couple of months, to try and gather a little more experience. I know that, when it comes to article creation, I'm a little lacking, but I've always seen myself as a metapedian (however, I'm trying to change that) and I also know that I should be more active in XfD... All in all, it's always good to see how people perceive you. Again, thanks; I'll try to take your suggestions on board. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

XfD, especially AfD, isn't something I enjoy doing. I do it because I feel one should do one's fair share of the less pleasant tasks. In my case, I'm weak in Afd, as well as AN and ANI. I look forward to supporting you for sysop fairly soon.--SPhilbrick T 11:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I very well understand you; I think that quite often, AfDs turn into drama-fests (even more than AN and ANI), that's why I try to shun them, but you're right when you say that we all should do a bit of dirty work... So, yes, expect to see more of me there. ^__^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD question

I'm really not sure I can answer your question. From what I can tell, any outcome in an AfD other than 'delete' can be left to the other voters to carry out; for example if it's a merge then you could redirect the pages without deleting them so that others could pull up information from the redirected versions and merge it in slowly. An example of a page that was kept at AfD but redirected is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd nomination) (the redirect was later reversed). —Soap— 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford (2)

Little Thetford is being prepared as a WP:FAC. The latest peer-review, rightly, comments negatively on the article introduction. I believe getting this right, sets the tone for the rest of the article. I have had a try at re-writing the lead before --> and after.

I am far too close to the article to be objective enough. Do you know anyone who can help me get this right? --Senra (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no need for the above. Article is going through FAC now --Senra (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hosa Technology - Ready to go live

Hi Shilbrick,

I went back in to check the Wiki page I created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosa_Technology) and see the following message:

"This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (May 2010)"

Since you have already reviewed the article, can you process and post it without the message showing? Jmlnarik01 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 11:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done removed peacock terms; made it less advertisement like; removed advert hat. Has the user Jmlnarik01 gone? Ho hum. It was good practice for me anyway --Senra (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams

A Request for Comment has been opened concerning whether to use "Connecticut" or "UConn" in the names of articles and categories about University of Connecticut athletic teams. You are invited to comment here: Category talk:UConn Huskies#RfC on use of "Connecticut" versus "UConn" for University of Connecticut athletic teams. As a frequent editor of UConn women's basketball articles, I thought you in particular would be interested. –Grondemar 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Season pages

Hi there. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I really appreciate your work. These season pages can seem like a full-time job sometimes. Before I do anything for the upcoming season, I am trying to finish up the recent seasons for women's hockey and basketball. All the best. Maple Leaf (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Robb Forman Dew page

Thanks for the feedback on the Robb Forman Dew page. I think I did what you asked. Let me know if there's anything else (sorry if I'm responding in the wrong place). Somewikiwork (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford image replacement proposal

Little Thetford—Proposal to replace existing 2006 image of roundhouse with 1906 image. Please join the debate --Senra (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

I saw your comment at RfE about the despute today at the Robert Watson article. ArbCom has extended their deadline to introduce new evidence relating to this particular dispute. I'd like to create a timeline of the incident so that ArbCom has a fair and accurate portrayal of what happened. So I've create a user page here. Can you please review this page and offer and guidance or feedback? Feel free to edit the page, too. Right now, I have (I hope!) a complete timeline of edits to the actual article. I plan expanding the evidence to include the talk page discussions, the RfEs, user page discussions, ANI, etc..

BTW, I notice that you help out a lot at our Help Desk. Would you happen to know how to put this evidence in a grid? I think it might be helpful to ArbCom if they could sort/filter the data on the fly. I know that this article has grid sorting, but not filtering. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're killing me.

Last week, I gave some thought to putting some of the evidence in a grid. The more I thought about, the more I thought it would be useful but I kept thinking of things to add. Then I realized if I started it, that it would suck the life out of me, so I backed away.

I composed two posts related to the Watson issue, and didn't pull the trigger on either one. I can't figure out why so many people are calling it vandalism, when it clearly isn't, so I wonder if there's something people aren't saying.

I'll take a look at the timeline.--SPhilbrick T 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've only collected evidence for the article and the article talk page and I think that already it's way too unwieldy. I think I'm going to quit for the night so you can have free rein with it if you want. I'm not sure if I want to stick with straight evidence or also add an analysis section at the end of it. What I find most troubling so far (and nobody has noticed this AFAIK) is that WMC reverts the IP's contributions and marks the revert as minor. It seems as if WMC wanted to cover his tracks so no one would know. I agree that the edits are clearly not vandalism. The other thing I find troubling is that nobody seems to mention BLP issues until towards the end of the edit war, and even then, there's no explanation as to what exactly the BLP violation is. I think it eventually gets mentioned at RfE, but based on the article edit summaries and talk page, I can't figure out what the BLP violation is. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I confess my immediate thought when seeing it was "minor" was to consider a ban on WMC ever using "minor". However, that was an over-reaction. I think I've seen some editors argue that reversion of vandalism counts as minor. I take a different view regarding how I use minor, but I can understand the rationale. Now, there's no question that anyone with a clue knows it isn't vandalism, but if you honestly think it is vandalism, then the "minor" tick box is acceptable.--SPhilbrick T 01:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding format - I'd like to either see some formatting applied - e.g. bolding editor names, color coding article versus talk - or go full bore table. I know how to doa sortable table - I've never seen a filtered table (although ironically, I was looking at a filtered table today at work, and realized I need to use it as a test case in a work project, but that's a different issue, albeit an issue that is keeping my WP time limited).--SPhilbrick T 01:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is a table something that you would be willing to work on? I'm going to work on some non-CC related work and then go to sleep for the night. I have softball practice tomorrow morning so I probably won't resume work on the evidence until early afternoon (CST) tomorrow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First pass User:Sphilbrick/Robert Watson incident timeline

Looks great. Very much what I had in mind. I would add another column (or something) to distinguish between these links and evidence from the RfE, ANI, and User talk pages (which I haven't added yet). Thanks for all your help. Going to bed now. Have a good night. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For reasons I haven't figured out, the sorting of the editors is a little funky. Normally, it should toggle between up and down, but it seems to cycle through four, depending on whether it put the numebr IP value at the top or bottom.
I was going with bold for editors, but that was to make them stand out - not needed if they have their own column.
I trust it is obvious why sorting on link doesn't sort by link number - but you can always get that back by sorting by time.
I haven't done a proofread, will do that in the morning.
If you pick up the RfE etc links, I'll add them. I think I would just use the article/talk column and add Rfe, ANI and user talk as options. If you don't do that right away, I may try to do it myself. --SPhilbrick T 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making the following two changes:

Replaced "WMC" with "William M. Connolley" for consistency.
Added WikiLinks for all the editors. This looks nicer. I'm not sure how to do this with IP's so I left 211.28.194.74 unchanged.

I will start collecting evidence at other pages now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added additional evidence from the other pages to the timeline's talk page. I think we need another column to indication which page we're talking about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

<-I thought you had softball and weren't going to be around until later? Or maybe it is later. I went out and did some brushclearing, but now can work on it.

I composed a post to Hypocrite to let him know about it, but decided to wait to talk to you first.
I noticed Hypocrite has his own summary of the incident - with his spin on it - that not a criticism - I don't have a problem with anyone pointing out evidence with "guiding" commentary, but I assume we are attempting to be as neutral as possible. One thought I have is to distinguish your comments form literal quotes by italicizing actual quoted material. Or using a different text color - or letting it go because you used quotes.
I'll bring the new material into the table over the next hour or so.--SPhilbrick T 13:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I woke up early and decided to finish it off. I'll leave for softball in about 45 minutes. Yes, I'd like to be as neutral as possible. I used quotes, so I think it's fine as is, but don't have a strong opinion. Do what you like. I think a little color would be nice, something subtle, at least in the headers. Do you want to post this evidence, or should I? It doesn't matter much to me. Oh, one note that we should be clear on is that I collected all the diffs from both the article and it's talk page, and the first diff of every discussion else where. There are probably a couple hundred or more diffs scattered all over the place, and I had to draw the line somewhere. If there are other diffs that are relevant, I'm sure other editors will present them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've almost finished with the new set - I'm remembering why I'm not in IT - struggling with some simple text manipulation, but I'm getting there. Unless you object, my plan is to tell Hypocrite - on ythe chnace that he agrees to link it in at his evidence section - I don't think it is quite kosher for me to edit his evidence section. If that fails, or even if it doesn't I'll look into linking it into my section, with something prominently mentioning Watson and you might do the same, so it comes across - hopefully as collaborative, not as the new Cabal.--SPhilbrick T 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking that one of us would create our own evidence section and copy and paste the table at the ArbCom case. I was only using a user page as a temporary holding place to work with until the table was done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. Almost done, but I've learned wthat when I copy a table into a page,t here's at least a 50/50 chance it will hang Mozilla, and I have to get out and back in.--SPhilbrick T 14:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, up, now needs cleanup and review - I have to check the sorting, and there was one entry before that looked odd. I left the original table below. You mentioned needing an additional column, I didn't do that see if this works, or you still want a separate column - oh and I need to add explanatory text re - all diffs versus first diff from talk page--SPhilbrick T 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed some of the material is truncated. Will work on fixing (maybe cut to 255 characters?)

<-

OK, truncation errors are fixed, I think.
While the table is sortable we should decide the default order.
At present it is Watson Article and Talk in chron order, then all other diffs in chron order.
I think that's fine, as someone might want to just see the article and talk in chron order, and this is the only way to see it.
The other option is to start with pure chron order of all entries - advantage - cleaner, disadvantage - while you can sort by edit location and see any group together, you can't see the article and talk diffs as a group in chron order.
One other thing - the table is long enough that I think it should be presented in collapsed format, other than the intro.
I'm leaning toward your idea of a separate evidence section, with this material only, and encourage Hippocrite to refer to it.

I posted a courtesy note to Hippocrite.
I'm not planning on any color coding, I think it is clear enough.
I'm going to go clean up the trees I cut down for a couple hours, will check back then so we can settle on where to place it
I'll add the collapse, just so it is clear how it looks

It looks good. I changed the title (well, the collapse title) to include the word "article" since the dispute was about the article and Robert Watson (the person) had nothing to do with it. I also changed "incident" to "dispute". I think the default sort should be chronological for all the diffs regardless of the location. When I compiled this timeline, one of the things that struck me was how quickly the dispute escalated with very little communication on the article talk page. This is easier to see in chronological order.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you win your game?
I will reorder the table so it starts in strict chron order.
I'm looking at the evid4ence page, and think we should add a new section titled "Evidence presented by Aquest for Knowledge and Sphilbrick"
Then drop in the collapsed table with the intro.
Please make sure you are happy with the intro wording, then I'll be happy to move it into evidence
Will take a bit to fix the table, I'm just sitting down to a meal--SPhilbrick T 17:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was just practice. Yes, I'm fine with the intro wording. Sure, "Evidence presented by A Quest for Knowledge and Sphilbrick" is fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, updated - I'm going to go for it.--SPhilbrick T 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, go for it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I take it as obvious that while I posted it, you have the rights to edit it if you see needed improvements. I will follow up with a notice to anyone who posted about this incident on the evidence page - I think notifying all participants is overkill, unless it is required.--SPhilbrick T 18:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I am notifying those who made reference to the incident on the evidence page, specifically, SBHB, Minor4th, GregJackP, and Hipocrite. Did I miss anyone?--SPhilbrick T 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we probably should notify USER:Off2riorob, USER:Atmoz, USER:WVBluefield and USER:ATren. I'm not sure Off2riorob knows there's an ArbCom case and I'm not sure I recognize WVBluefield. ::::::::::I think that Atmoz might be a regular CC editor but I don't think he edits the same articles I do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I added mark nutley. I did not add WMC - I don't want to be too anal, but I don't want to be arbitrary - so far, my list is anyone who mentioned Watson in their evidence. If I go beyond that, I feel obligated to notify anyone who was involved; at this moment, it sounds like overkill, but I can do it.--SPhilbrick T 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC made reference to the incident so I informed him--SPhilbrick T 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your listed times are Central Daylight Time - add five to get to UTC if you want server time. Since relative timing is the key here I doubt that it actually matters one way or another. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I had thought it would be less arbitrary to use server time, but the data was compiled before we considered changing it. As you say, it is more a way to identify the relative order, so not critical. If others express a preference for server time, I'll look into fixing it. --SPhilbrick T 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Solomon

Now that you've finished that one, do you feel like doing one to illustrate the edit war on Lawrence Solomon around July 9th? :) I can't remember now who asked Rlevse, but that edit war was mentioned and he said evidence could be late-included since it was after the evidence deadline of July 7. I left the same message on AQFK's talk page as well. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: I direct your attention to User:A Quest For Knowledge/Lawrence Solomon article dispute of July 8-10. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Working on it - can you tell me if there is a need for the field Edit Location" or is it the case that these are all in the same place - I know, i can figure it out, but I want confirmation.--SPhilbrick T 01:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

First pass done - has errors, but I see why - see User:Sphilbrick/Lawrence Solomon article dispute of July 8-10

It looks like the wrong names are being displayed. Do you know why? Is it something that needs to be fixed on my end or your end? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably my end - I'll look - I have to fix date sorting first--SPhilbrick T 02:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just going through the content -- it would be helpful if you had a column for article or talk. That is confusing me a little trying to sort it out. Maybe start it with Connolley's reversion of "environmenalist" also because that is where the edit war kicked off. Just suggestions, disregard if you don't like them. And thank you both for the work you're putting in to this.

The problem with the time and date sorting might be fixed by simply putting the date first (before the time). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that I didn't answer your question, "can you tell me if there is a need for the field Edit Location or is it the case that these are all in the same place". All the diffs are in the article or article talk page. I didn't collect diffs from other pages. This took a while to compile and I had to draw the line somewhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NP - I had spot checked a few and only hit talk pages - then you noted that some were article and some were talk, so I added the field - I did it by "hand"- think I got them all right, but might have slipped up - if you note any errors - just ask. BTW, on the first one I used text-to-columns in Excel, but it worked badly. I got frustrated, but found another way to do it, so it is easier; just mentioning in case there's a need to do this again, it is getting easier - although you are doing the hard work. I looked to see if WP supported filtering of tables, but I didn't find anything encouraging - the ability to filter a table would be nice.--SPhilbrick T 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's the current status? What work needs to be done? BTW, ArbCom has indicated that they will they're going to post their PD (which I think means "proposed decision") early tonight, EST. Will this evidence even matter? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, good point. While I was close to the Watson incident, so had no problem adding an evidence section, I'm not close enough to this one to know what should be done. I haven't seen the dispensation for adding this - I presumed that either you or Minor4th would be adding this one - but I agree we need to decide what to do next.--SPhilbrick T 16:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 18:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Advice

I know you have been kind to me, especially (not exclusively) when I first started making edits. Please do not feel dragged into something new (I can see you are very busy). I simply need a little advice. Not sure what I can do. I am reluctant to link, as it leaves a trace (in what-links-here for example), so I will describe an apparent edit war going on (edit 20:06, 16 July 2010 by unknown IP; 21:23, 16 July 2010 my rv; 22:43, 16 July 2010 rv by unknown IP) in an article I am very familiar with. I am trying hard not to rise to the apparent war. (a) am I taking the right actions (i.e. none since one revert which I now regret)? (b) are such events normal? (c) what caused it? (d) how can I avoid it in future? (e) is it a war if I don't rv again? --Senra (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Well, well, well.

I just reviewed the FAC. I'm exhausted. I've never gone through GAN, much less FAC—in a very vague way I knew it was intense, but now that I've seen it upclose - wow.

You are to be commended for the work you've done.

That said, back to the matter at hand.

I have the luxury, (and burden) of being less invested in it than you, so while you may see an intractable stalemate, currently locked at the least attractive (to me) of there options - I see it as the usual give and take of a discussion that doesn't go quite as cleanly as one would like, i.e., get informed input from several parties, then note a clear consensus for a great solution, implement and move on. Instead, a request to choose A or B became Let's try A and B.

I'll also note, as my friends can confirm, that I may be totally offbase and missing the whole point - while you supplied time stamps, I didn't see those exact times, so I may be making an improper inference.

I'm about to throw my two cents in; if I am not even dealing with the right incident, hit me with a trout and I'll take care to do the simple math to make sure I'm right.

BTW, I deliberately did not try to ascertain which position you preferred, and that's as it should be.--SPhilbrick T 21:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We may see different times due time-zone settings I guess. Anyway, thank you for stepping in --Senra (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Duro Bag Mfg

I was wondering if you could review my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gcorwin/Duro_Bag_Mfg for relevance for inclusion. I requested this once before, but no one has responded. Thank you in advance..

Greg Corwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcorwin (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 11:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - Newly Created Wiki page

Hi Shilbrick,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you again. You were so helpful last time around with Hosa Technology, I thought I would ask for your review for my newly created Wikipedia page for Indital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indital).

Would you mind reviewing and, if all looks good, moving it to the main space?

Thanks Jmlnarik01 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try to take a look at it this evening, although I note it is already in main space.--SPhilbrick T 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - Newly Created Wiki page - Follow up

Great, thanks so much. I believe it is in the main space now, but it is still listed as an "unreviewed article."needs a review to remove the tag. Thanks Shilbrick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get to ii last night - the hotel I stayed in lost power, so no internet - will try again today.--SPhilbrick T 11:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 12:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do, in fact, clean up after myself

Thanks for leaving me a 2nd, clearer question.

In the edit summary for your 2nd question you wrote: "Possible solution for afghan training camp articles: I'll be willing to support a userfy plan, if..." But it doesn't look like you ever checked back to see if I responded to your second question.

Mere minutes afterwards you left comments on some {{afd}}, where you described my first answer as "non-responsive", and where you stated that you thought I was trying to get everybody else to clean up after my mistakes. Here is the timeline.

You may think I wasn't responsive to your first question. For the record I did my best to respond to the question you left. If you found it non-responsive, I am going to suggest you consider it was unresponsive to a question you didn't actually leave.

I didn't know you found my question "non-responsive" when I left my second answer. I didn't know you had left those comments about your opinion of my intentions on those {{afd}}.

I trust you now understand that your concern that I was trying to get the wider wikipedia community to clean up after mistakes I had made was based on a misconception. I suggest that even if, for some reason, you doubt my truthfulness, that my contribution history shows I do clean up after myself.

Here are links that show I spent one entire weekend addressing a problem that cropped up due to a lack of understanding on my part as to what should go in the template name space. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did read your second response.

Let me tell you how I view the situation. Who knows, maybe some of my assumptions are flawed, and there would be value in correctly my views.

I have absolutely no interest in Afghan training camps, although I do have an interest in ensuring that WP is a good resource for people to learn things, including learning about Afghan training camps.
I suspect I am not alone in my interest or lack thereof. This is not intended as a quality comment on the subject matter. I have intense in articles about women basketball players, and fully understand that these articles would bore many to tears.
You have invested considerable time in researching documents relating to such training camps and related issues.
I think it is wonderful that people have varying interests, and people with intense interests in a subject can contribute to an encyclopedia in a way that people with moderate interest can learn( in other words, there are people who would like to read about it, but not spend hours doing Google or library searches).
I've looked at some of the articles proposed for deletion, and think the material could be merged into other articles. However, having considered what needs to be done, it is my view that it might take me hours to do a few, because I need to read the material carefully, familiarize myself with the names of the individuals, the names of the locations, and deal with the complications of occasional multiple versions of names for camps and individuals.
It is my belief that you have done all this reading, and have a decent familiarity with the subject matter.
I conclude that you could do a merge in minutes that might literally take me an hour to do.

Do you disagree with any of these assumptions?

Because they explain my view, that you could probably do the merges in less time than it took you to write a response to me, while it would take me, or anyone else not intimately familiar with the subject matter, quite some time. That why I view it as disingenuous that you want the AfD to be closed as a merge. I think you could do the merge in less time that it take you to post the argument. But even if I am wrong, and the merge is a lot of work, why should others do it? Is there any reason to think that others can do it faster or more efficiently than you?

If you say you are willing to do the merge, why not go ahead and do it? It has been weeks since my first question, and unless my assumptions are badly flawed, you could have merged the articles in less time than you have spent arguing about it.

Am I wrong in assuming it would be easier for you to do the merge than anyone else? --SPhilbrick T 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I anticipate that a simple cut and paste style merge, one that doesn't add several well written, and extremely well documented paragraphs of background would be almost immediately nominated for deletion itself. I continue to think the merge I proposed is worthwhile. I think it will take about six hours of work, within a factor or two. Three hours would be the bare minimum. I think that amount of work is worthwhile for this topic. I think several times that much work would be worthwhile.

I wrote a response to those who think that by working to suppress material on the captives they are "fighting terrorism" in this document By helping to make the public information about Guantanamo suspects more accessible, aren't I "helping terrorists". Geo Swan (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When you talk about 3-6 hours for a merge, are you talking about merging one of the articles, or all of them? Plus, I'll repeat my last question, which you may have missed "Am I wrong in assuming it would be easier for you to do the merge than anyone else?"--SPhilbrick T 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct that my previous investigation into these topics would make some aspects of this merge easier for me to do a good job at than other contributors who who would have to spend more time reviewing the references. On the other hand, challengers might look at a draft I prepared, and say my draft showed blinkered thinking. But, as I previously stated, I am prepared to do the work, and no one else has indicated they have the time or energy, which definitely makes me the prime candidate.
- I have seen articles, that were sent to {{afd}}, had a merge conclusion, where no-one ended up doing the merge at all.
- And I have seen articles with terribly disappointing merges, simply cut and paste, with no real editing whatsoever. Some merges cut and paste whole article(s), to section(s) of another article, and then turn the merged article(s) into redirects to the sub-section heading. I am very strongly opposed to this practice, because I consider redirects to subsection heading, in article space, deeply broken. These redirects look like real wikilinks, but they don't work like real wikilinks. (1) One can't put them on one's watchlist; (2) one can't use the "what links here" button on these wikilinks; (3) there is no warning to good faith editors that even the most minor change to the spelling, wording, punctuation, capitalization or spacing, will break wikilinks.
When I was just about the only person making changes to multiple articles connected to Guantanamo, I sometimes laid out plans I had for changes, or asked for feedback via email or on a few other contributors talk pages. But I didn't do so consistently. I am no longer essentially the only person. User:Iqinn has made 14,000 of their 15,000 edits associated with these topics. Both User:Iqinn and I should be generally sharing our plans and concerns. So far I am sharing those plans, and IQinn isn't
I anticipate it would take 3-12 hours, not 3-6 hours.
To follow up on a comment you made a couple of days ago, I think we should try to cover important topics, even if no-one is interested in them. Some years ago I started creating maps on little-known places, like Erie Pennsylvania, and Biloxi, Mississippi. Hardly anyone visited them. But when Hurricane Katrina came along, and hit both New Orleans and Biloxi, lots of people wanted to know where Biloxi was. One never knows when an apparently uninteresting topic will become of wide interest. Good encyclopedia's cover those apparently boring topics too. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)