Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87→Archive 90

List of Florida State Prisons map

I noticed you added this map, but about 10 of the locations have bad coords. The number in the lon= is actually the latitude, and the number in the latitude is something else. I found this because I monitor Category:Location maps with marks outside map and outside parameter not set and this article showed up today. MB 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an error in the Washington Parks map also. The coord for Peace Arch is messed up. Not sure if that is the only one. I'll look further when I have time if you don't get to it first. MB 01:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@MB: I'll look into it, but tomorrow afternoon. I did notice a couple, which I fixed, but I thought I had caught them all. In fact, I just realized what the problem probably is. Again, I'll get to it tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm doing the prisons slightly differently than the parks, which was supposed to make things easier, but I just realized the approach can introduce an error. That doesn't explain WA Parks, although it might be related.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@MB: I figured out what I did wrong on the Florida prisons. It's too boring to explain but it's fixed. In the Washington state parks there's a state park named iron horse but when I looked up the coordinates it turns out there is an iron horse also in Colorado and I picked up the wrong one. Now fixed. I've added a man and max field to my spreadsheet, and I will compare to the map extent values. Thanks for pointing this out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I usually fix these myself (as far as I can tell I am the only one monitoring this maint category), but in this case it seemed like you could do it easier/faster (most of these errors are made by newbies). MB 02:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Article restored; email answered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sphilbrick. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:?Oumuamua

Please check Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:?Oumuamua and undelete the page. I created that redirect for a very good reason: so that people could reach the RfC from the notifications that Legobot is scattering about. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology or User talk:Maproom#Please comment on Talk:?Oumuamua. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, but I still don't understand it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but Feezo (talk · contribs) deleted it again less than half an hour later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:I concur. While I don't quite get why the talk page needs to exist, I'm happy to assume that there's some technical reason I'm missing. However, look at it from the standpoint of an editor looking at the talk page and noticing that there is no article. Classic CSD. What to do from the standpoint of the admin reviewing the CSD request. A talk page exists and the article doesn't? This is an something one investigates to see if there's some reason — this is happened tens of thousands of times and in every instance, the talk page has been deleted. If it gets restored, it will get nominated and deleted again. The solution is to create the article maybe it should just have some placeholder text explaining its existence, but without that it will be nominate, delete, rinse and repeat.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I have created a redirect at Talk:?Oumuamua with {{G8-exempt}} and an explanation. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thanks, regarding your explanation: it would not be feasible to go around fixing the incorrect links that were left by Legobot, since the bot would merely have altered them all back again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick, JMHamo, Feezo, Crow, and PrimeHunter: This is the situation.
All admins please note: the big pink speedy deletion box has a line in it,
Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion.
This is all consequent on one bug with Legobot (one bug of several). I cannot fix Legobot; it is not my bot. I have asked Legoktm (talk · contribs) several times in the past for bugfixes, but have been met with silence. Over the course of two years or so, I have learned some of the most efficient ways of setting up workarounds for Legobot's various quirks, so it is somewhat disconcerting to find that people come along and destroy my carefully considered work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add {{G8-exempt}} when you don't want an orphaned talk page to be deleted. That should get the attention of administrators who don't check WhatLinksHere and the page history to find a reason for the page. It also adds the page to Category:Wikipedia orphaned talk pages that should not be speedily deleted which says it can affect automated deletion tools. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I turned the associated article into a redirect, which may be belts and suspenders given the notice on the talk page, but it should help in case editors are searching for talk pages without an associated article and find it that way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all. Let's hope that it stands at least until the RfC closes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
What a kerfuffle! Seems like certain people who fulfil speedy deletion requests do so rather too speedily. It's worth noting that the "speedy" part only means "without the need for lengthy discussion", but you are expected to take a little time at least deciding on your own whether a page actually warrants deletion. Props to Redrose64 for sifting through the problem. It amazes me that a little ʻokina could pose such a major tripping hazard. nagualdesign 01:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Sorry, I strongly disagree. While you are correct that speedy doesn't mean without thought, one of the categories is talk pages for which there is no associated article. This was a talk page with no associated article. It doesn't take very long to verify that there is no article. What on earth are you suggesting? That one should do some sort of investigation to see if this qualifies for some exception? Even though there are no exceptions identified? What time would you have spent, and what would you have done in that time?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my comment came across as disparaging. That wasn't my intention. Nor was my comment aimed at you personally, even though this is your talk page. What I'm suggesting (on Earth, no less!) is that perhaps, as Redrose64 has already suggested, editors should check links, history (last), and logs before deletion. Perhaps it might be helpful if those links were shown on the template itself? As a rule of thumb I'd say that checking whether something you are about to do is a good idea is always advisable, otherwise you're at risk of becoming what I like to call a domino. If there was no due diligence involved in speedy deletion there'd be a bot doing it, and I'm pretty sure we're all better than bots (or dominos), right? nagualdesign 02:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: I don't know how how to take it other than personally. You made a disparaging comment about how it deletion was handled in a thread in which there is exactly one deletion being discussed — one handled by me. Who else would you we referring to? Yes that editor suggested checking a whole bunch of things. I don't know how many deletion spawn this category but I guess that I've personally done over 1000 in the last year. Checking out postings each time would be an enormous waste of time. If you read the CSD discussion? It says there can be some exceptions, and identifies a template that can be used to signal that it is an exception. That template wasn't used. It would've taken less than 30 seconds to add the template far less than the multiple minutes it would take to check all those links history and logs. But I'll stop now — you have no idea how incensed I am. If I express how I really think, I may get blocked, so I'm signing off for the day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Calm down a bit, mate. What happened is, RoyGoldsmith posted a link to this discussion at the bottom of Talk:ʻOumuamua#RfC about the two tables in the Trajectory section, I followed the link, read the discussion then posted a comment about the discussion and the ongoing saga between Legobot et al that went around and around in circles. The fact that this is your talk page didn't even enter my head until you began spitting feathers. As I said, I'm not criticizing you personally, but you must admit that this was an avoidable kerfuffle, no? You then asked me what on Earth I would suggest so I answered you. No need to get upset about that. If you insist on taking things personally even after I've said it's nothing personal then I suppose signing off for the day is probably a good idea. For what it's worth I apologize for any offence. Sincerely, nagualdesign 03:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Yes, it was an avoidable kerfuffle. One option, as noted in wp:G8, is : Exceptions may be sign-posted with the template {{G8-exempt}}. That was pointed out, and carried out, by PrimeHunter. The other solution, which I carried out, is to create the article. So yes, it was avoidable, but I'm part of the solution, not part of the problem. I need to remember that you don't have any experience with deleting CSD's so may not comprehend how your criticism and followup suggestion came across. I hope you become an admin someday, work on deleting CSDs and revisit this conversation. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Another simple solution, as I suggested, might be to have links like this shown on the template itself. I only need hover my mouse pointer over that link and within a fraction of a second I can glean some valuable insight, without having to launch an exhaustive, time-consuming investigation of some kind, which I'm sure you would agree would make the process described here much quicker and easier, and enable all admins to be more thorough. In the words of David Deutsch, all problems are soluble. nagualdesign 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: If by "the template" you mean {{db-talk}}, it already has such links; in the template, they're below the line "If this template does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice." and above the line beginning "This page was last edited by". The reason that you can't see them yourself is that they belong to class sysop-show, which hides the line from non-admins, like this. These links are the ones which I described towards the end of my post of 10:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC), line beginning "Administrators: check". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying. I did wonder why they were missing. I even looked at a few previous incarnations of {{db-talk}} to see if (and why) they'd been removed at some point. Well without wishing to cause anyone any further consternation, since the links are extant, mousing over them only takes a moment, and the instructions on procedure are clear there's very little excuse for behaving like dominoes. nagualdesign 17:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not ready to give it up? I had hope this would die, but apparently not.
Mousing over some links may take only a moment, but moments add up. My guess is that there have been over ten thousand such pages deleted in recent time, and this is the first one I've ever heard about which was challenged. Moments multiplied by ten thousand adds up to meaningful time, which is a waste of time to catch perhaps one item. I think I have a decent capacity for boring repetitive tasks, but I'm not going to look at something ten thousand times on the chance that once, it will be worth looking at. Adding the policy prescribed template takes a fraction of that time. I cannot fathom why one would want to follow a much less efficient approach. One more time, I look forward to you becoming an admin, so you can revisit this issue, as it has now become an obsession to you. If you choose to waste your time that way, good for you, but my time is more valuable.
In summary, you are proposing an inefficient way to solve a problem, when an efficient solution exists. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's discuss with specifics.

Since I last posted, eleven pages have been nominated as G 8. I opened each in a separate tab and examined them. Many were simple (IMO).

One was a redirect to itself. Not much need to further investigate, so I deleted. One was a link from a sandbox to a draft, which has been deleted. Routine, deleted. Another one is a link to itself.

Talk:Russian people in Israel

I think that's enough to delete it, but you'd prefer I look at the links, history and logs. Let's just do the links. You can't just glance at them—here's the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Talk:Russian_people_in_Israel


Would you open every one, and examine whether they suggest the talk page should be retained? That doesn't take moments, it takes quite some time. Once you open the page, you have to search and find the reference, then figure out what it means. Maybe 15 to 20 minutes, or maybe more, instead of five seconds. Multiply that for every one identified. That's horribly inefficient. If you want to do that, good for you. I'm not ready to spend five to fifteen minutes per item when it should take two-five seconds. It can be restored in seconds, if the person failed to put the required template on it.

Are you seriously claiming that you have time to delete pages, but do not have time to carry out a few basic checks first? The links that I mentioned are not decorative, they are in all of the speedy deletion templates (via Template:Db-meta) for a reason. If some random vandal puts {{db-nonsense}} on today's featured article, would you delete that out of hand? Of course you wouldn't.
WP:G8 states "it excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia", and I contend that a link from an RfC listing to the RfC itself is useful to Wikipedia. Maybe I should have used {{g8-exempt}}. Maybe I forgot to. It doesn't absolve you, the deleting admin, from the responsibility of doing things properly. Why not carry out fewer deletions, so allowing more time for each one? Those deletions that you do not get around to will still be picked up by somebody at some point; after all, you are not the only admin who deletes pages; and moreover, there is no deadline. Except in the case of newly-created attack pages, copyvios and one or two others, speedy does not mean immediate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I am seriously contending that spending fifteen minutes on that task is a horrible misuse of time. I don't fault you for failing to follow policy and adding that template - I didn't know it existed until Primehunter pointed it out. 15 minutes times tens of thousands is an incredible waste of time. We have a backlog of hundreds at OTRS en. We have a backlog exceeding a thousand at OTRS permissions. We have a backlog at Copypatrol, and that's just three areas of personal interest. If you want to commit to doing ten thousand extra CSDs, I'll stop doing them and work on other backlogs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Surely you understand the page in question is "useful to Wikipedia" only in the odd sense that a bot is broken, the bot owner refuses to fix it, and this requires an otherwise nonsensical talk page to be created to clean up the mess. You are one of the most technically savvy editors I know, and it may be immediately obvious to you that the page has a purpose, but I contend it is far from obvious. It may be that you would immediately figure it out by looking at what links here, but I contend that many competent admins would not immediately see why it existed. If I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll move on to other areas. Heaven knows there is more than enough to do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Re James William Pearson

I don't mind being edited. However, I would appreciate the courtesy of being finished before you start. Please observe and respect the "inuse' tag.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In use tags were in common usage a decade or so ago but not recently. However, while I've handled 30 or 40 issues in the last few hours, I don't see signs that I edited that article. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Robert Guertin Centre

Thanks for your help at Robert Guertin Centre. I see more good faith additions were made in the meantime. I will try to get around it fixing it up properly on the weekend! Flibirigit (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your e-mail!

I am still doing Scout stuff here. Did you have something in mind?

Nothing specific, just saying hello.

On that note, I am trying to merge Zawisza (Szare Szeregi) to Gray Ranks, it's been proposed for 2 weeks without comment, but I never have figured how to do a history merge properly, usually end up doing cut-and-paste merges, which I know are frowned upon. What might you suggest?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I did a histmerg once, but it isn't something I feel comfortable doing. I know there are some editors who specialize, wish I could recall their names, maybe a tps will suggest one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) A history merge shouldn't be done due to WP:PARALLELHISTORIES. Just follow WP:MERGETEXT. (Anthony Appleyard specializes in histmerges.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kintetsubuffalo: Thanks, Anthony Appleyard is the name I was trying to recall.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You have got Mail !! - Politicoindian

Hi,

I was wondering why the addition I had done to the Lok Sabha page had been reverted.

I had taken the data from the official loksabha page Loksabha Committees and not from any other source. Other pages have taken it from the official page.

I was planning to expand on these committees based on the same source.

Regards. Politicoindian (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Politicoindian: The fact that came from an official page might sound like a positive thing but it's actually not. Text added to Wikipedia article should be written in a neutral way, and text written by the subject is typically not neutral.
In general, text should be written in your own words. When text is used from another source, it must be encyclopedic and tone, and the source must be licensed in a way that it can be used. The license agreement for the material at the site you mentioned is broader than some sites but incompatible with Wikipedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Page request

Can you add three pages? The three pages are San Francisco Premium Outlets, Gran Plaza Outlets, and Outlets at Tejon. --2601:205:C100:627F:2087:F2AA:E5B2:1FE1 (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

By "add" do you mean create articles? I get a lot of requests to revert deletions, which I often carry out, but creating an article is a different kettle of fish.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rodney Atkinson

Sorry about that! I forgot to remove the actual copyvio before adding the revdel template. I should be more careful in the future... Also, thanks for completing the request :) Jiten talk contribs 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jiten D: That's OK, it came in in my copyright review.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of recent edits

Hello,

I recently made edits to the Science Week Ireland website as the content was not up to date but today I see my edits have been removed. Can you please explain why or add my edits back in?

Kind regards Wikicottage (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicottage: Please note the edit summary included when I removed the material. Added appears to be be copyrighted and not freely licensed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi

The added content is not copyrighted. It seems you had an issue with a URL i included. Is there an issue with including any URLs? Even if so, all of the other content I added should not have been deleted. Can u please add it back in?

Kind regards Wikicottage (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicottage: Check the bottom of the page: "© Science Foundation Ireland 2017" --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Addendum - the removal was based upon copyright issues, nothing to do with any url you may have included--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


Okay so is the issue that some of the text I used is the same as on that page?

What about all of the other content I added?

Kind regards, Wikicottage (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wikicottage: There's no need to create a new section for each reponse
Yes, that's the issue. Whenever we detect what appears to be a significant copyright issue, it is our policy to use rollback which undoes not just the entire edit but all contiguous edits by the same editor. In some cases, whether appears to be minor copyright infringement as part of a large edit, we might take the time to tease out exactly what needs to be removed but that wasn't the case here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

  • OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
  • User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
  • Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:KSL Classifieds

Hi I noticed you deleted this draft as a speedy delete. it looked ok to me and had some properly referenced sources that at least attempted to show notability with the topic being the subject of independent articles in reliable sources. Can you explain your reasoning as to why this qualified for a speedy delete? Egaoblai (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Egaoblai: It's a declined draft which hasn't been touched in six months. Per policy, it can be deleted. Also per policy, if you want to work on it I can restore it for you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
HiSphilbrick thanks fir the reply. I know that drafts can be deleted per policy, but I'm wondering what was the reasoning behind deleting this one. Perhaps I have missed something, but it didn't seem uncontroversial to me.Egaoblai (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@Egaoblai: The reasoning is simple. Drafts with no activity after six months are deleted. It happens dozens of time every day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Sphilbrick I've brought this up on the incident noticeboard, as I believe you are supposed to be deciding whether something at g13 should be deleted, not simply deleting it because it ran out of time. Egaoblai (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, Sphilbrick I was in the wrong here and brought that up based on faulty information I had recieved from others. You did nothing wrong and I was at fault. Egaoblai (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@Egaoblai: Thanks for the apology, but the interaction identify the different administrators have different standards on how much review is needed. I still think my level of review is more than is necessary but it is clearly less than some others do. FYI, I have to ping you on my page so you get a notice but you don't have to ping me as any post on my page automatically pings me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's that time of the year

No fancy template, Sphil, but just to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_85&oldid=1140054536"