This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kleinzach (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 1 July 2013 (→Rejection of your analysis of the Nikkimaria/Andy Mabbett interaction: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:33, 1 July 2013 by Kleinzach (talk | contribs) (→Rejection of your analysis of the Nikkimaria/Andy Mabbett interaction: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
AIG logo
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Strawberries
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Liana Alexandra
Hi, any further thoughts on this? It's something of a tough problem because the copyright issue is complicated by the edit war. Could you recommend any different process? Pkeets (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been distracted, with look at it later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to complete this. I looked at one online version, but I'm told that's not the right one, so don't have the ability to review this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you suggest another process. For example, where would I find someone involved with music article copyright issues who has access to the online Grove? Is there a page to ask about this? Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might try User talk:Wizardman, who is active in copyright. I do not know if he has online access. I'm going out of town for a week, with limited access, so can't do any more at the moment. If Wizardman cannot help directly, he may be able to suggest someone who can.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will do. Pkeets (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might try User talk:Wizardman, who is active in copyright. I do not know if he has online access. I'm going out of town for a week, with limited access, so can't do any more at the moment. If Wizardman cannot help directly, he may be able to suggest someone who can.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you suggest another process. For example, where would I find someone involved with music article copyright issues who has access to the online Grove? Is there a page to ask about this? Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to complete this. I looked at one online version, but I'm told that's not the right one, so don't have the ability to review this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
YouSendIt
Hi Sphilbrick. I just got a note from you because of my editing of the vitamin C megadosage page. You say I should sign my edits- "In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ) " I am a biochem professor, expert of vitamin C, but not on wikipedia editing, though my nutrition class is now editing wiki pages each semester. So when I edit a page, do you mean I should go to the talk page and write. I just did an edit of this page 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Roc Ordman ordman@beloit.edu Is that what we should do?
- You didn't "just" get a note from me. I left that note in 2010, which is why I was drawing a complete blank.
- Please add new posts to the end of a talk page.
- Yes, you sign a post by adding four tilde's, but if you are not logged in, it will add your IP address. (It is actually easier to click on the pen icon) I haven't looked at Vitamin C megadosage (until just now), so I wasn't reacting to those edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/INC Central Temple
Please delete and SALT Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/INC Central Temple as it has been created three times by Zhzhw (talk · contribs) as a blatant copyright violation. It is also about time for a WP:CCI of this user whose contributions seem to be mostly copy-paste. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm out of town until next Thursday, with limited access. If this needs doing now, please ask someone else. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Michael Falzon, photograph by Gavin D. Andrew Studio Portrait.jpg
again want to thank you for your patience proving copyright permission for this image :) I hate thinking of names (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive
|
Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) |
Deletion of Willy Santos page
Hello Sphilbrick, I updated the Willy Santos page and was wondering if I can correct any copy to follow any guidelines that were broken or give you reference for the changes to get the page undeleted. Thank you - Raibyn Raibyn (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- A bit under the weather at the moment, will look at in the morning.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article is about a professional skateboarder, which doesn't make him automatically notable. As an aside, there was an article about him deleted in 2006 for the same reason, that there is no assertion of importance. I admit to not knowing much about the skateboading world, so I have no idea whether being a pro is a big deal or not, but the article is about someone who gets paid for what he does, which is what billions of people do. The article had no references (a personal website can be used for certain things, but it does not qualify as a WP:Reliable Source, so it could have been deleted for that reason. You need to show that he is wp:Notable; the link will help explain how.
- Check out Tony Hawk. You don't have to get that far, but it will give you an idea of an acceptable article about a skateboarder. Category:American skateboarders contains other examples. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Sphilbrick. I reviewed the links you posted, Willy is very much a notable american skateboarder/actor, It was my mistake not to include reference links. He has won world championships including the xgames, actor in tv/movies and has multiple published independent sources about him. Please let me know how to go about adding a more detailed information and reference links to his page. Thank you. Raibyn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing that he may be very notable. However, notability has to be established in the article, with links to reliable sources. Creating references is one of the challenging tasks for new editors, see Referencing for beginners for help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bedson sock
You might want to take a look at an IP's comments at User talk:Agricolae, User talk:Amatulic and my talk page. Now I wonder why I'm being singled out for the deletions. Maybe because Bedson sees me as his bete noir? The IP originates from Australia, but it strains AGF to think there's no connection. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thanks. You might want to read . The sourcing problem was serious and not always easy to detect. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I recall that discussion, but hadn't remembered the name. I illustrated my point with copyvio, just because it was handy, but OR, fringe and other related issues very much fit the paradigm.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thanks. You might want to read . The sourcing problem was serious and not always easy to detect. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons admin
I noticed your comment at the RFB discussion. I'd certainly like to see you as a fellow admin on Commons. When you're ready, I'd be happy to do the RFA for you. The best place on Commons for you to do preparatory work is here. There are thousands of copyvio and out of scope images in there that need to be tagged for DR and CSD. You might want to start in the May or June cats, as I've done alot of tagging already in the earlier months. I usually get atleast 30 or 40 DRs and CSDs out of each day's images. INeverCry 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The images in Category:Media needing categories haven't been patrolled or categorized. This means that many of them are out of scope or copyvio. You'll find screenshots, internet images, unused personal pics, promotional pics, album covers, etc. INeverCry 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I get it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are probably somewhere around 40000 bad images mixed in there right now. I've tagged atleast 10000 out of there in my time on Commons. You can take a look at the copy & paste DR rationales I use here. There's never a shortage of crap in the "Latest files" either. INeverCry 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I get it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Willamette University logo
Per the unofficial guideline on college articles, we put the seal first, then the logo later. Not to mention it looks really weird to have the logo at both the top and bottom of the infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I replaced it per information from Willamette University Marketing Communications informing me that the item there (they called it a logo not a seal) was outdated.
- It seems odd to tell the University they don't know what they are talking about.
- Can I arrange to put you in contact with them to resolve this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old
Never occurred to me to use AWB to remove the template, thanks for raising it at VPT - makes maintenance of this category so much easier. NtheP (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to be working. Still tedious, but less so.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
File:The Squatters Daughter.jpg
Could you undelete the revision you deleted here? It says that it is from 1908, so {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} should apply and it shouldn't be listed as fair use at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, oh, I tried but failed. Not sure how to recover an older version with the same name. Don't know why you would know, but if you know, let me know, if not, I'll find out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think this worked. Looks like you have taken care of the cleanup. I also downloaded the original, so if there is something wrong, I can re-upload it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- About the copyright status in the source country, I'd say that this either is anonymous or a work by William Anderson (theatre), meaning that it is in the public domain in the source country too. Do you agree with that? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not yet comfortable answering. I've reviewed the US laws in some detail, and recently looked though the Canadian laws for some reason, but I see this poster relates to a performance in Australia, but the file came from a source in Tasmania. If I had to guess, I would guess it is OK, but I'd want to hear from our international experts first. I know if I want to work in Commons, I need more international experience, which I'm gaining slowly, but I'm not there yet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- About the copyright status in the source country, I'd say that this either is anonymous or a work by William Anderson (theatre), meaning that it is in the public domain in the source country too. Do you agree with that? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think this worked. Looks like you have taken care of the cleanup. I also downloaded the original, so if there is something wrong, I can re-upload it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:World_One_Mumbai.png&curid=30530221&diff=551182031&oldid=551148779 I think something went wrong. Werieth (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the file is not yet sufficiently small, if I understand the rules correctly, so I wanted it reduced. However, when I went to add the template, I see that I accidentally removed the missing rationale template, so I have restored it.
- I see an attempt at a rationale , but not properly formed.
- Is that what you meant, I hope?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- That and why dont you think the image is small enough? Werieth (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that this needs to be reduced further. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's 116 K.
- I don't think that this needs to be reduced further. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- That and why dont you think the image is small enough? Werieth (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content "most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels)". I've given a pass to some at 102 and 104 K today, but 116k is pushing it.
- However, Stefan has much more image experience, so I'll defer to him. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 100,000 pixels is not always the ideal size. For example, WP:NFCC#3b says that you shouldn't use an entire work, so software icons tend to be uploaded at a reduced size despite the original being less than 100,000 pixels. Also, I wouldn't bother if the file is insignificantly larger. I think that DASHBot (talk · contribs) refused to reduce files smaller than 160,000 pixels, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Another issue
You have sometimes removed {{non-free reduced}} without removing the old revisions. See File:Venus and Serena Official movie Poster.jpg, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Is there an organized way to find such errors?) Like a search for images with more than one version and a Non-free use rationale?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Non-free files with multiple revisions used to be tagged automatically by Fbot (talk · contribs) (so that they appear in one of those maintenance categories after a week), but the bot operator left Misplaced Pages some time ago. Fbot's tasks were partially taken over by Svenbot (talk · contribs), and I think that the idea was that ContinuityBot (talk · contribs) was meant to take over all of the tasks, although the operator only has filed a BRFA for some of the tasks. Let's see what happens. I've reverted your errors in the cases where the image was on my watchlist, but far from all of the images are on my watchlist. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I posed a question to the bot operator here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Non-free files with multiple revisions used to be tagged automatically by Fbot (talk · contribs) (so that they appear in one of those maintenance categories after a week), but the bot operator left Misplaced Pages some time ago. Fbot's tasks were partially taken over by Svenbot (talk · contribs), and I think that the idea was that ContinuityBot (talk · contribs) was meant to take over all of the tasks, although the operator only has filed a BRFA for some of the tasks. Let's see what happens. I've reverted your errors in the cases where the image was on my watchlist, but far from all of the images are on my watchlist. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Reputation Advocate logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Reputation Advocate logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:Willamette University Logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading File:Willamette University Logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Rather than take it to ANI- A administrator removing a CSD on an article he created.
It involves 2015 Formula One season and this administrator. Yes and I put a warning on his talk page. It never occurred to me till after I did it, that he might be administrator. Still, as an admin. with over 100,000 edits, he should know the CSD rules. Could you please take a look at it?...William 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Timing is a challenge, I'm cleaning up a few things, then headed out of town until Friday. I may get a chance to look at it tomorrow evening but probably not, sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't fully look into this at the moment, but I poked around a little.
Can we hold off on going to ANI until we try talking, and seeing if that works? I think it will. Here is my (possibly incomplete) understanding of the sequence:
- In March 2010 a redirect was deleted. (I think this is unimportant, but the first in the sequence)
- In November 2010 the article was deleted at AfD (as part of a deletion of 20xx for x x=14-20) Generally, because too far into the future. Obviously, that rationale diminishes over time
- On several dates, starting in 2012, and continuing through 2013, it was recreated, and deleted per G4
However, G4 does not apply simply because an article is recreated, it has to be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". I didn't look closely, but I thought Ronhjones, in the edit summary, indicated that new information had been added, so it shouldn't qualify as a G4. (In addition, he alluded to the fact that a deletion decision based upon Crystal eventually should be reconsidered.) After Ron restored it, he and others made improvements to it, so it is no longer eligible for G4.
The main issue, I think, is that Ron removed the tag, without much of an explanation, but I'll also note that you added the tag to an article that was being improved. Looking now at the history, I see that it doesn't look (on the surface) much different at the time you tagged it from the version that was deleted, so I understand why you added the tag. Ron was in the process of improving it, a couple hours later, it was clearly no longer the same article that was deleted, so I think we simply have a bit of a misunderstanding. In a perfect world, Ron might have had the improvements handy, so he could undelete and simultaneously improve, then there would not have been the brief period where it still looked like the old article and arguably eligible for g4.
In retrospect, it would have been better if Ron had left an explanatory note, something like, yes, this appears to be a recreation of a deleted page, but there is new information which is being added, so it is not eligible for G4. In addition, while the page creator is not supposed to remove a CSD, I take Ron's point that he wasn't acting as the creator of a page, he was, as an administrator, restoring a page created by someone else, (then planning on improving it as an editor), so he was not wrong to remove the tag, anyone can other than the creator, and it would be an abuse of technicalities to claim he was the creator.SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the article is at the moment is 4 references all to a GP being held in Thailand in 2015. That's what makes up the article at the moment. Here's the last version edited by Ron, the one deleted before he created, and the article as it stands now. Ron didn't improve the article, so CSD should still apply. You're going to say that is my opinion but how do you explain WP considers Ron creator because when I CSD who did the notice go to? Ron. Who BTW in this edit summary says create. So he writes create in a edit summary and he's not creating? He's been arguing a technicality but as an administrator he had access to the deleted versions before posting the first of the latest. The article isn't identical but nothing he edited made the article's content different so far as getting around deletion. He should go to ANI but as I expect nothing will get done to him. Two different sets of rules around here....William 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your question prompted me to look closer at the CSD rules, and I came up with three questions, which I posed on the Talk page of CSD --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another issue is Ron is WP:INVOLVED. He took administrator actions on a CSD that he was involved with. I know administrators who won't even rule an AFD snow if 10 editors to none say delete or keep, because they were one of the 10. Which is what they should do....William 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your question prompted me to look closer at the CSD rules, and I came up with three questions, which I posed on the Talk page of CSD --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the article is at the moment is 4 references all to a GP being held in Thailand in 2015. That's what makes up the article at the moment. Here's the last version edited by Ron, the one deleted before he created, and the article as it stands now. Ron didn't improve the article, so CSD should still apply. You're going to say that is my opinion but how do you explain WP considers Ron creator because when I CSD who did the notice go to? Ron. Who BTW in this edit summary says create. So he writes create in a edit summary and he's not creating? He's been arguing a technicality but as an administrator he had access to the deleted versions before posting the first of the latest. The article isn't identical but nothing he edited made the article's content different so far as getting around deletion. He should go to ANI but as I expect nothing will get done to him. Two different sets of rules around here....William 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ruddy Shelducks in TX
Got your note! I am torn between sports, politics, and birds....I know, a crazy combination..Ruddy Shelducks are native to eastern Europe and Asia.......Almost if not entirely impossible to have wild birds in TX...My guess they are escapes from a zoo, collector or game farm...Pvmoutside (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Sphilbrick; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed a popup box notifying me of your post. I'm not sure I can respond immediately, but I will get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
File:MonsterMortgage.ca logo - 2013.jpg
You added an OTRS ticket number but no OTRS template. I assume that either {{OTRS permission}} or {{OTRS received}} should be added. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for paying attention, yes, it was resolved, but I failed to use the template. Now fixed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:LexTran logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:LexTran logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Cristy Road
Hi, could you tell me why you deleted the Cristy Road article? Link http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
User_talk:Bearian#Copyright_question
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. So - better the devil we know than the devil we don't. The fact that at its top levels Misplaced Pages is not clearly prepared to clarify its feelings on this one way or the other makes me frankly pessimistic that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)