User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 35
 | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
Cristy Road
Hi, could you tell me why you deleted the Cristy Road article? Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristy_Road It says something about copyright regarding the deletion, but doesen't give specifics. Cristy Road is a famous enough figure to deserve her own wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexedits (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- It appears to be a copy or close paraphrase of this site--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
CBB template
Best as I can tell, while the functionality is there, actually removing a column causes the instability that you saw on the page. I think it was one of those cases where it was known that it wasn't supported, but it was never actually addressed (which makes sense - how many college basketball coaches NEVER coach in a conference throughout their entire career?). I would jump in and try and sort that out, but I'm honestly rather rusty - I created that template about six years ago, and haven't really been an active wiki editor for a while.
If you wanted to tackle it, though, I'd say using the college football templates for inspiration to see how the code is handled there. It's probably something similar.
Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance! --fuzzy510 (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, you explanation makes sense. I'll guess that it is extremely rare for a coach on the men's side to manage to coach only for independents and be notable. Slightly more likely on the women's side, as there were more independents in more recent years. While I've worked on coaches who did coach independents, most went on until the team was in a conference.
- I'm going to let it go - I thought it might be that I just had to tweak some undocumented parameter, but it sounds like it doesn't quite work right. Maybe if I get caught up on other things I'll look into it, thanks for you suggestion to look at the college templates.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Facebook-like features
Hey Sphilbrick; I saw your comment on Steven's talkpage :). Is this something you'd like to have a dedicated conversation about? I'm happy to discuss it with you - here, email, heck, google hangout or skype if you'd like to go into some detail :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I sent an email.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Not at all what I ever meant to imply.
It was your comment "Andy, a number of editors have weighed in and we need more. I count one, PumpkinSky, who has supported the stalking claim. ..." (your comment at: 16:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)) that I addressed, and then the "weak tea" was a different situation. I don't particularly subscribe to the "percentage" or "numbers" model, preferring to consider "article history" as a more accurate accounting. It would be easy for an editor to bury 2 or 3 stalking reverts per day within 50 or 100 edits to other articles being my reasoning there. So no, I never meant to imply that you were not taking the situation seriously, and it's why I prefaced my comment with the acknowledgement that you've spent a great deal of time and effort in reviewing the situation. My apologies if you got the impression that I was being dismissive or if I somehow implied that I thought that you thought it wasn't serious. I'm also concerned that if this would devolve into another huge infobox war - that parties on many sides could suffer, so I suppose in some manner it's my attempt to diffuse the situation. With that, I'm about out of energy for today - but I will check back with you tomorrow or the next day if you'd like me to clarify anything. Cheers and Best, — Ched : ? 20:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- So I ask for more editors to get involved, you comply, and I jump down your throat? Not very considerate, was I? Sorry.
- On the numbers, I'm a numbers kind of guy, so that's where I start, but I try to be careful not to end there. I fully agree that "to bury 2 or 3 stalking reverts per day within 50 or 100 edits to other articles" could count as Wikistalking, but please note, your example is a few per cent, and the numbers in this case are an order of magnitude lower. You are suggesting that 2 or 3 a day might qualify. I agree, but there are 22 over almost seven months, so less than one a week. While not claiming that numbers tell the whole story, there's quite a difference between a couple a day and one a week.
- We are on the same page in worrying that there could be an infobox war. However, it is my view that an infobox war is virtually guaranteed if we refuse to address the policy issues, which, oddly, Andy doesn't want us to even consider. Which is why I would like us to wrap this up, and then tackle an RfC.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- You asked for more editors to be involved, - with hesitation I said a bit more. - Nikkimaria came to my talk a while ago, heading "Peace music", Andy is one of the most helpful people I met on WP so far (and caring), - I wish we could find a way to work together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- The challenge is that, as a community, we have chosen to encourage one thing, and prohibit another, and the two things are hard to distinguish. One thing is wikihounding, which can include watchlisting another editor, and making a revert to many of their edits, without community support for the reversion. The other is to notice that some editor is making mistakes, adding them to your watchlist, and reverting when they make edits that are not consistent with desired community editing practices. When the community hasn't clearly stated that the subject actions, adding infoboxes to articles are or are not good edits, then it is hopeless to ask the community to determine whether the actions are encouraged or prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed hard to distinguish, latest example in the thread: one editor sees "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving" where I observed "complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving", - there are no arguments against strong feelings. I have good faith, wish there was more around. Interesting that one of the mentioned instances from the past (September 2012) reminded me of my own vote in it against infoboxes, - I was "converted" during the discussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite discouraged about my inability to make progress in the ANI thread. I am convinced that several prolific and well meaning editors have strong feelings about proper infobox usage, and are quite convinced that their positions are consistent with community views. However, the community has failed to be clear, so both sides in a discussion or argument can point to guidelines or community discussions which support their position. However, ANI is about behavior not content, so it isn't the right place to push that point. SlimVirgin and others have hinted it won't get resolved until it goes to ArbCom, but they are about behavior as well, so I don't see that as fruitful. I'm sorely tempted to start an RfC, but the timing is poor. I had three weeks off, which end today, so cannot devote the time to it I would like. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Before I saw your comment, I added the Wagner example to the thread because it shows in a nutshell what I see: there are people who think an article such as Wagner would be damaged by an infobox, - I am not one of them but respect it. As explained, I am willing to do what SlimVirgin requested, - it's what I am doing anyway. I want to keep a good working relationship with the editors envolved, most of whom I called awesome before (and still would). I work with Nikkimaria and Smerus, see for example the talk of BWV 103, a classical music article with an infobox. It's a myth that the project is against infoboxes, that restriction is only for people, not for compositions or orchestras. I fail to see a reason for the difference, but that's fact at present, and I see a will to keep it that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite discouraged about my inability to make progress in the ANI thread. I am convinced that several prolific and well meaning editors have strong feelings about proper infobox usage, and are quite convinced that their positions are consistent with community views. However, the community has failed to be clear, so both sides in a discussion or argument can point to guidelines or community discussions which support their position. However, ANI is about behavior not content, so it isn't the right place to push that point. SlimVirgin and others have hinted it won't get resolved until it goes to ArbCom, but they are about behavior as well, so I don't see that as fruitful. I'm sorely tempted to start an RfC, but the timing is poor. I had three weeks off, which end today, so cannot devote the time to it I would like. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed hard to distinguish, latest example in the thread: one editor sees "stormed in with a assumed fury to agitate about the archiving" where I observed "complained that it was in the way of automatic archiving", - there are no arguments against strong feelings. I have good faith, wish there was more around. Interesting that one of the mentioned instances from the past (September 2012) reminded me of my own vote in it against infoboxes, - I was "converted" during the discussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The challenge is that, as a community, we have chosen to encourage one thing, and prohibit another, and the two things are hard to distinguish. One thing is wikihounding, which can include watchlisting another editor, and making a revert to many of their edits, without community support for the reversion. The other is to notice that some editor is making mistakes, adding them to your watchlist, and reverting when they make edits that are not consistent with desired community editing practices. When the community hasn't clearly stated that the subject actions, adding infoboxes to articles are or are not good edits, then it is hopeless to ask the community to determine whether the actions are encouraged or prohibited.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- You asked for more editors to be involved, - with hesitation I said a bit more. - Nikkimaria came to my talk a while ago, heading "Peace music", Andy is one of the most helpful people I met on WP so far (and caring), - I wish we could find a way to work together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope this answers your question. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes....
Thank you for your post. My view of the infobox wars is that there are two conflicting axes of conflict which are by their nature irresoluble as a whole. One argument is as to whether infoboxes add to or detract from the encyclopaedic quality of the page. My feeling is that for some articles they may add and for some they will not. In some of the topics which particularly interest me (notably music) I feel strongly that they do not. Where editors are interested only in content, then resolution of this issue can normally be carried out on the article talk page. However, the 'metadata' arguments for infoboxes, which I hold, for reasons too tedious unless you really want to know, to be totally spurious, (a very good summary of some - but only some - of the arguments is at The ongoing attempts to turn Wikipedia into a database), encourage editors with no interest in the article topic to swoop on such disputes and ignite oil on troubled waters. Some of these metadata warriors - and I name no names but you can doubtless think of one or two - have the time, tenacity and pugnacity to browbeat those who disagree with them, in the hope, often successful, of driving them from the scene.
The metadata issue is the one to be discussed on a Wikipedia wide basis, not the infobox issue of which it is only a symptom, and which imho would in itself be trivial if it were not regularly whipped up by those who are basically not interested in articles, but in constructing a mega database. However, if it does come to a discussion my assessment is that the metadatists would win, as they have the technological savvy and phraseology which enables them to throw dust in the eyes of most boring old encyclopaedists like myself and to win over those who have historicist emotions about a technological future. If it gets to the stage where I feel this battle is lost, then I will leave - and there may be others who think like me. If on the other hand the databasists lose, then - say - Andy Mabett will leave. Although I believe he has inflicted serious damage in music articles, I cannot deny that he has been a strong editor and creator in other fields. And there may be others who will think like him. I believe that either of these outcomes would be a serious loss for Wikipedia. So - better the devil we know than the devil we don't. The fact that at its top levels Wikipedia is not clearly prepared to clarify its feelings on this one way or the other makes me frankly pessimistic that Wikipedia can survive as an encyclopaedia; but it also indicates I think that they are aware of the stakes here. To hold a 'decisive' RfC risks forcing the issue and bringing the house down as a consequence.
None of this of course justifies bad behaviour by Nikkimaria, Mabbett, or anyone else. Despite the feigned shocked expressions of horror by Jusdfax and some others, I am confident that my sins are very minor in this context. So I sleep at night, at least. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- PS: If you doubted that this debate is about power, rather than knowledge, then Jusdafax's latest contribution to the ANI will disabuse you. He exhibits all the attitudes which he is keen to condemn in those who disagree with him; rather proving, I think, the declension of 'I am principled' which I set out in my earlier post there. For myself, I am content that the moral victory remains with me; I can tolerate him, but he would like to eliminate me. Of course I am also aware that history teaches us that in the long run such pathetic moral victories are completely worthless. When the iron fists of Judasfax and his like have driven those with non-conforming ideas from the field, we will soon be forgotten, and Wikipedia will become just another expression of Intellectual Correctness. I don't know if you read Russian, but you might try having a look some time at the Soviet Encyclopedia of blessed memory. When topics became incorrect or people became 'unpersons', they would issue replacement volumes, or rpelacement pages, or (eventually) just instruct owners to tear out the relevant pages. With electronic media of course that's all so much simpler. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with Smerus. In the case of the AN/I I'm disappointed. It was at least an opportunity to limit the edit warring by getting the three main parties to obey some limited rules. That hasn't happened and the AN/I loses credibility in the process. Nikki and Mabbett (now back) seem to have turned their backs on the discussion. In any case, Nikki is hardly a veteran of the infobox debates. I don't think she's been a participant in any of the main debates.
- Regarding small boxed summaries in encyclopedias, I think they've been used since the 1960s or 1950s. As I know from my own experience, publishers have always had trouble coordinating them with main text. The problems we have on Wikipedia are essentially a hangup from the print world. As far as metadata goes it's a classic case of 'rubbish in rubbish out', there is no way you can make a good database out of bad material. My hope is that sooner or later the software developers will look at creating 'smart boxes' that automatically connect the information in the box to the information in the article in a meaningful way, and that will eventually be our solution. --Kleinzach 08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Rejection of your analysis of the Nikkimaria/Andy Mabbett interaction
If you look here you'll see Andy Mabbett has completely repudiated your analysis of the so-called stalking. I think it would help if you could reply to him. Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I burnt out. It will resurface, but I have no energy for it now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand how you feel. I'm cutting back on my involvement with WP too. It really isn't a productive environment. I expect we will be closing down the Composers Project soon. I've been looking at the level of activity there (articles as well as project discussions) and it's now minimal as a result of the attacks on the project. Anyway, thanks for being a voice of reason in the debate. --Kleinzach 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For helping to finally clean Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo. Wizardman 19:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks, I know you did the majority of the work, but glad I could pitch in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to review and comment
Hi Sphilbrick. As a former contributor to this, you may wish to take a look at this. If you do, please read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Comments on its talk page. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Commented. Thanks for the notice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Brad on Boxes
Hi, re your question to Gerda about NewYorkBrad's suggestion on infoboxes... It was an idea he tossed out during a discussion on another user's talk page. He tentatively suggested hosting the box permanently on an article's talk page, if there were serious objections to having it in the article. It's in this section, near the bottom of the thread. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I had briefly searched for it, but failed to find it. Looks like Gerda was right and I was wrong. Not the first time, but glad I didn't bet money on it, as I think it is such a bad idea, I would have given long odds that NYB wouldn't really have proposed it :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a dreadful idea. :) I was going to say that in my original post to you, but didn't, on the off chance you might have thought it was a good idea. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Whether my in-passing suggestion for a compromise was a good idea or a bad idea, it got no traction at all, so I don't think you need to worry much about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by. There are a lot of aspects to this issue, and I thought I might try to knock off some low-hanging fruit. This aspect looks resolved, even though it didn't turn out the way I had predicted. Now, on to other issues.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Whether my in-passing suggestion for a compromise was a good idea or a bad idea, it got no traction at all, so I don't think you need to worry much about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a dreadful idea. :) I was going to say that in my original post to you, but didn't, on the off chance you might have thought it was a good idea. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
OTRS question
Can you take a look at File:Princess Hemamali & Prince Dantha.JPG? The artwork is by Solias Mendis who died in 1975. Is the OTRS from his heirs? Here's another example from the same uploader which I just sent to PUF: File:Painting at Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara.jpg. This issue originated after a deletion at Commons due to the 1975 death date and no FoP in Sri Lanka; see commons:User talk:INeverCry#Regarding King Kirti Sri Rajasinha's Photograph. It looks like numerous files are involved. Thanks for your time. INeverCry (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- About to go to a meeting but will check after the meeting.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The permission was provided by an heir of the artist.
The photographer of the two works, Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne, is the same.
It now occurs to me that we might need permission from both the heir(presumably inheriting the copyright of the painting from the mother) and the photographer(as holder of the derivative rights).
This would seem to be true in both cases. Do you agree?
The Commons discussion refers to other instances, but unless I'm missing something, these others are other examples in Sri Lanka, not all photos of paintings by Solias Mendis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't look too deeply into this, but I was basically concerned with images by this particular uploader, Anuradha Dullewe Wijeyeratne, by Mendis. I wanted to see what was covered by the ticket, and if perhaps further permission could be gotten, especially for the one I sent to PUF. As for permissions, if the uploader and photog are different people, than yes, permission from heir and photog would be needed. I'm busy with my new checkuser work on Commons, so it's tough for me to find time to check through this user's uploads here and on Commons to see which are Mendis paintings, etc. I appreciate your helping on this. INeverCry (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will follow up on this. However, I have to head to NY for a couple days, I hope to do something this evening, but if not, it may take until Friday.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
RFAR
I didn't add you as a party to the infobox request, but I hope you'll continue to follow it. Perhaps I'll disagree with you on some points, but you are familiar with the situation. So your input is most welcomed. I think you and I spoke once or twice, ... but "nice to meet you". — Ched : ? 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the post. I briefly wondered how I should label my involvement - not quite involved, as I haven't, AFAIK, edited any of the articles, but not exactly a pure bystander. If you think that's necessary let me know. We might disagree on some points, but I bet we can do it with being disagreeable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Infoboxes ArbCom case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Zad68 18:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Painting at Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara
Hi Sphilbrick,
This photograph was taken by me from my camera. It is a wall painting in a public premises. I understand the error that I have done with the above file name. Pl. delete the above file & then I will again upload the photograph as File: Photograph of the wall painting at Kelaniya vihara.
Waiting for your reply & thank you.
Anuradha
අනුරාධ (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Editintro for fiction articles?
I have proposed a means of preventing copyvio plot summaries that requires changing the site-wide Javascript. Your feedback is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Editintro for fiction articles?, before I take this to a wider audience. MER-C 06:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:New Tsebo logo low res.png
Thanks for uploading File:New Tsebo logo low res.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Gamecookslogo low res.png
Thanks for uploading File:Gamecookslogo low res.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender
Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Women's Basketball Task Force
I would be willing to be part of a task force, though I would probably focus or assist on specific conferences. I plan on creating a women's basketball page for each WCC team again this season, and have thought about doing the same for the Big 12, since Baylor is currently the only one consistently with a page, the WAC, the American, Conference USA, and possibly the Mountain West, Big Sky, and Pac-12. This alone would significantly increase the number of women's college basketball articles for one season, compared to what there currently is. I would focus on these since BYU is the team I root for, but I don't believe that I should focus solely on 1 team when I do an article. I believe the entire conference deserves that respect. The other conferences I would focus on are solely because I live in Texas and am familiar with the Texas schools in those conferences, while for others like the Big Sky, Mountain West, and Pac-12 are because BYU's state rivals (Utah, Utah State, Utah Valley, Southern Utah, Weber State) reside in those conferences. Truth be told, I would like to get the women's basketball section to be just as big as men's basketball, though I know that will take some time. Bigddan11 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is very encouraging. No need to apologize for the focus, my concern is that when I find an editor who works on an article about a women's basketball player, they are often only interested in one player, or maybe one team. Interest in multiple conferences is great. As a BYU fan, you'll appreciate that one of the milestones in my own basketball fan career was attending my first regional conference in Providence many years ago. The player that stood out was Danny Ainge--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to be involved in the task force, but my knowledge is basically limited to Australia/New Zealand and Australian players. Spy007au (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. While I have interest in the international aspects my main interests and strengths are US related, so it will be great to have some balance. For example, I started Timeline of women's basketball history, know it is US-centric and want more international involvement. I know you know about that article, as that is where I got your name, and thanks you for the contributions to that article. Oh, and you've probably seen it, but one of the accomplishments I'm proud of is persuading FIBA to license File:2006 World Championship for Women Australia.jpg. The small image on the timeline doesn't do it justice, open it as a larger version to get the full effect.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be willing to join a task force. I also suggest that you try to get buy-in from the following projects/task forces, if you're not already involved in one or both:
- WikiProject College Basketball
- WNBA task force of WikiProject NBA
While my interests vary from time to time, I mainly follow the SEC—I'm a diehard UK fan with two degrees from that school. Since UK's main rival is U of L, I may also pay a little attention to The American (2013–14) and the ACC (future). On a related topic... I'm absolutely stunned that not all of the FIRST-ROUND picks in the 2013 WNBA Draft have articles. I plead guilty to neglect as well... one of them is from UK. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yeah, A'dia Mathis absolutely deserves an article. On a more positive note, Kentucky is supportive of Wikipedia, I requested a photo Matthew Mitchell from th e Athletic department and they were willing to license a nice one, so if someone can put together an article, I'll commit to following up with my contact to get a photo. I'm fine with editors who might have interests narrower than all of women's basketball, if we can find a large handful of editors who will cover a handful of teams, we can get more complete coverage. I don't see a lit of women's basketball discussion at either the Basketball or College Basketball Wikiproject my (possibly naïve) hope is that a task force with a more focused theme will attract more editors. We'll see. I was able to add several photos of All-Stars recently, but there's so much to do. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Talk page BLP issue?
An editor here has accused a non-notable individual (a crisis management pro) of stalking him or her off-wiki and of being responsible for an edit made by an IP they identified as a whitewash. Although the edit was obviously made by someone with a close affiliation to the organization, no evidence was provided to support the allegations of stalking or even that that person was the one that made the edit. I was wondering if you could take a look and see if this is a BLP or outing problem and if it is, what - if anything - should be done about it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm unable to help at this time. Just finished a long day, have a long drive ahead of me, and not likely to be doing anything on Wikipedia this evening. Perhaps can look at it tomorrow, but have a full work day, so would prefer that you try someone else first. Just curious - why Me, have I had any involvement in this before?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
EdCom
If you'll take the time to work through it, I believe that my content arbitration committee conceptual draft fits all the criteria which you proposed at the ArbCom page. Not that it is ever going to happen, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. I have a number of thoughts about several aspects of it, but let's start with the broad overview - to a first approximation, it is exactly what I had in mind. (As an aside, even as I was typing out my support at ArbCom, I considered searching for such a proposal, thinking it was highly likely that someone else had thought of it first.) I'm not as convinced as you that it cannot be done. But then, I'm an optimist.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are several other similar defunct proposals out there if you look hard enough. I'm generally an optimist, too, but I've been battered into submission too many times on this idea to be willing to have any hope. Feel free to use any or all of my draft if you care to go forward with the idea. Ping me if you do go forward and I'll probably drop a support on your proposal, depending on the details, of course. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
I am the webmaster for International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and I also manage their wiki page. Can you please tell me why you deleted their wiki page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Professional_and_Technical_Engineers
--Kaulbr (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a copyright violation. (more at your talk page)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Something for you
Too lazy to manually archive, so closing a now closed item
|
|---|
|
An editor(who also happens to be an administrator) named The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)} was twice[1] warned[2] not to make further personal attacks or accusations without proof. Nevertheless TRM did just that here[3] "It appears that certain editors have both left messages and emailed various admins to monitor my actions". Absolutely untrue accusations and I can prove it by providing the emails. Those quotes occurred about 24 hours after TRM received a final warning. I notified[4] the warning administrator, but he's taken no action. Probably due to his being WP:INVOLVED due to TRM making disparaging remarks.(Nyttend hasn't commented[5]) TRM has clearly kept going with his attacks after a final warning. Will someone block TRM or will this be another proof that administrators(in administrator or non-administrator capacity) can get away with anything? You probably don't want to get into this mess but I decided to come here before ANI again. Most likely ANI won't do anything. After all, Mark Arsten didn't get blocked for calling an editor a petulant piece of shit but on the other hand the target of those remarks got blocked for using the word 'Arsehole' in the middle of that ANI.....William 12:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
WilliamJE, I've told you I will look into such charges, and I am. but I must say you haven't started on the right foot.
The very first diff you list is a warning against "further personal attacks or accusations"? Talk about jumping into the middle. If there is a warning about future attacks, it implies that there are some prior attacks, and unless they came out of the blue, that there is an underlying dispute. I'm happy to look into it, but I don't have time to play detective. What is the underlying dispute, if there is one?
Where are the links to the prior attacks?
when there is no proof we are. Nyttend told him in his warning to TRM at TRM's Talk page(which TRM has conveniently deleted) that accusations without proof would be grounds for him being blocked....William 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC) For that matter, where is the link to the attack that supposedly was made after the warning? I see a link [17], but it goes to a page containing all of TRM's contributions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Here's your answer- The attack after the warning is here[18] Reads- "It appears that certain editors have both left messages and emailed various admins to monitor my actions" Totally bogus accusation. I emailed you cut and paste copies of the emails. They should be in your box via wiki mail. If you want the originals, I need your email address....William 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
|