User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What to do with templates written by banned editor

Templates are a different issue from articles, because the template must be replaced with all or substantially all the same content. I am trying to find examples, and will add them here. If you agree this is important and a different issue from articles, perhaps I should put it in Village Pump.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how I would find templates already speedy deleted for reason G5. Perhaps only Administrators have access to that.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point, I cannot address it at the moment, but I will try to later today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have much to say. I agree that a template has limited scope for originality, but while that might allow for keeping templates created by a banned user, it might also argue that it can be deleted as recreated, because it doesn't create a copyright problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#Templates written by banned editor.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You can find the names of the ones I deleted by going to the deletion log and looking for 2 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Philadelphia Streets articles

Please explain to me what happens when I request the full text of a deleted article. Do you place it in my sandbox?

I request Cherry Street, Pine Street, Race Street, Snyder Avenue, and Spruce Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which you recently deleted. Feel free to place them in my sandbox, or tell me what is the usual procedure if that is not the usual response.

Also, what about images in Wikimedia Commons? If the blocked user did not create them, then no problem, but I am suspicious of some images used on Philadelphia articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DThomsen8, I'm not fully satisfied that placing in a sandbox is an acceptable procedure. Until that is settled, I'll be happy to email you contents, and ask that you ensure that only material not authored by a banned editor is added to a sandbox. Can we start with one, and see if it is workable? I'll pick Race Street, just because I remember driving on it. I'll look at the images.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I lost power just as I hit send, so if you did not get it, let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not get it, but my fault, my email account has changed. Try again.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
With all the activity on this day, I missed this. Re-sent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Images are in that articles:

It is going to be a challenge to redo street articles, but I will see what I can do.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Women's Basketball Taskforce Updates

With it now being July, I have made the following changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/US College Division 1. I changed the Group tables season pages to 2014-15. I updated the teams and conferences in the group tables to show new conference affiliations. I reset all the 2014-15 section to be a dash, unless they have already had a page started. My goal is to do 2 pages a day until all the teams get done for the 2014-15 season. If I'm able to, everyone will have their page up and ready before the season starts in November. I also created and updated the conference standings templates for next season, outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12. Those two had already been created. I also changed Clemson Tigers women's basketball page to Clemson Lady Tigers basketball as their Game Notes all show they are the Clemson Lady Tigers basketball team. Bigddan11 (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bigddan11. I see that User:Pvmoutside is cleaning up the coaches templates to reflect the new alignments.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
All Set Sphilbrick, but for some reason, the Western Athletic Conference doesn't want to cooperate. Looks like a code issue I can't seem to bug out....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Something's messed up, looking at it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Pvmoutside, you removed <noinclude> in this edit. I fixed it, I think.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix....and the invite to women's basketball. I spend my time mostly in other places, but I could look in from time to time....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If anybody knows of any games that need to be filled in, fill free to do so. I've only seen BYU and Dayton with their nonconference schedules listed so far, but I have included the ACC-Big Ten women's basketball challenge games and the Pre-season Tournaments that I am aware of that have the games announced when I'm doing the schedules. All the ACC teams have team pages now, as does most of the A10. I haven't listed any of the known conference games yet, though the conferences have announced whom each team will play, solely because I like to have the actual dates instead of a bunch of TBA's. I've been averaging 3-4 team pages a day instead of 2, so there will be plenty of time to get the schedules filled in before the season starts. Heck, I'll probably be able to copy and paste most of the Big 12 and WAC teams with last years data, just updating the player rosters and altering the schedules as needed, so it'll only take 2-4 days to do the entire Big 12 and WAC teams. Bigddan11 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been watching some of the the work you are doing, thanks. I assume full schedules are rosters will be available later. You are free to fill them in as they become available, but I find it easier to add when the full schedule is available.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
2014–15 UMass Minutewomen basketball team has the same problem that Baylor, Texas Southern , and others have had in the info box. It says UMass Minutewomen women's basketball team. I know you learned how to adjust it last year, so I'll leave it to you to ix. And yes, I will fill in the rosters that aren't yet listed when they become available. Chances are it will be whenever their schedule gets updated, but it will all be available before the season starts. Bigddan11 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly how at the moment, but I'll figure it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I fixed it, but it may take some time to propagate, I don't recall, if it isn't fixed tomorrow, I'll check further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Not fixed. Discouraging. I'll have to ask for some help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Club music related to EDM?

But there's no source anywhere for "club music" related to EDM. Can you figure it out? 183.171.160.111 (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocean warming sentence

Hi, Thanks for input at talk GW; I just posted draft v 4 below your comment. Part of your comment was resolved in the new version and part was not. I would encourage you to relocate your comment below v 4 and modify it to just focus on the part where there isn't yet agreement. That way, we can all stay the most organized, and any one who hasn't been following the play by play can really easily follow along. Up to you, of course. Thanks for the input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy First, I want to emphasize that I know you are doing the heavy lifting.
I found it was taking a fair amount of time to edit what is now a long section, so I created a new section. If there's another approach, (I considered adding a convenience break), I don't feel strongly either way. Feel free to move my comment around if it helps the organization.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the expression of trust! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened

You were recently 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/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page mayhem (mine, that is)

I don't know if you are aware of this, S, but my apologies anyway.

At Nigelj's page I claimed to have asked you a question. But when I said that, I had forgotten that before posting I replaced the question with a more fundamental one.

We agree that the article topic should cover the whole gamut of the current change in earth's climate (by whatever name) and not just the human component, yes? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[H]ow would you feel if we dropped ACC from the first sentence so that it becomes (more or less) "Global warming, also known as climate change is the warming of the earth's blah-blah and related blah?

Specifically, S, would that change resolve that portion of your (very useful) criticisms found in the sub-thread at Talk:Global warming#first sentence ?

Thanks for additional input NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Thanks for your comment. I saw the note about an unanswered question on Nigel's page, so went back to look. Didn't immediately see it, but got distracted (sorry, there's a lot going on). To answer the question, yes, dropping ACC would resolve my concern about that issue, although as you noted, it may be others who feel stronger. I'll note, hopefully in passing, that there was a suggestion that the human induced warming is more than 100% of the total. Without either accepting or rejecting that number, I'll note it doesn't matter. Many things are made up of constituents, and some of the constituents may be positive or negative contributors. One should not define the "thing" as made up of a subset of constituents, simply because that subset mat approximate 100% of the total.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, personally I stopped trying to learn about [{Attribution of climate change]] with IPCC AR4's >90% certainty/liklihood, and AR5's >95% certainty/liklihood that "most" is to blame on humans. Except for reading often that we'd be on our way to glacial period were it not for humans, I haven't attempted to learn any more details what the sources say on human/nonhuman causes. I think our main article GW can approach it that way, and point to the subarticle [{Attribution of climate change]] for more details, assuming eds more knowledable than I on that particular component are taking good care of that subarticle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The timing is horrible, although it may never be good. I'm trying to do some things with templates, and either need to bite the bullet and learn Lua coding or abandon it. If I jump into learning coding, it will be a big time suck; as you know, one cannot casually discuss climate issues, or to put it differently, on can, but not effectively. I think that climate science is far more advanced than many skeptics concede, but not as advanced as some of the adherents think. There are too many moving parts, so to speak. I think this had led some to get ahead of themselves (often not actual climate scientists). When challenged on their models, they have been reticent to say how much they do not know, and leave the impression the models are better than they actually are. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the truth will eventually come out, but it will take many years. I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project,. I think they will find that their climate sensitivities were too high.
Some time in the future, we may revisit this article as it is written now, and some will look at how various editors shaped to work it. My goal is to be proud of my very limited contributions, and even if the facts turn out to be different than my best guesses, I want the article to reflect what is known at the time. It doesn't meet that standard at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Whenever you say "I think the world will continue to warm, but at a rate slower than most models project" I'd encourage a bit more specificity; Earth's energy balance doesn't vary nearly as much as Global Mean Surface Temperature, and how fast any particular metric of temp goes up may not be as important overall as how many extra units of energy are in the system overall. As for the rest, whatever time you can offer making today's article excellent is appreciated. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thurston

Hi! I am editing a page about the web series Thurston

And why are you telling me?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Because you delete the page!
Ah, you mean Talk:Thurston (Webseries). That's a talk page and the article page is gone. It is routine to remove the talk page. I see now you are trying to write an article on a talk page. That's not the place for an article.
See Wikipedia:My_First_Article
By the way, I've deleted over 100 pages today, and don't memorize their names, which is why I asked. I had no idea you were inquiring about a deleted page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I restored it to Draft:Thurston (Webseries)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Economic graph

Hi, I'm hoping you can take another look at our COI discussion on the Talk page for the Economic graph article. I know you may be holding out for a third party to chime in on this one, but I'd appreciate your feedback on how I've addressed the concerns you've currently raised. One of the article's most active editors, user:Duoduoduo, has stated on their user talk page that they've left Wikipedia for good, so it's a bit of a challenge getting additional opinions here. Any attention is hugely appreciated - thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Will try to look at it soon, but have a couple items to finish first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Totally understandable. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Turns out it is now easy.  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kate Lambert email dates

The most recent email was sent from Kato yesterday, 7/20. Previous email sent 4/02. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User Prosfilaes

Has accused me of putting falsehoods or lies into an aviation template. On 4 occasions. Here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4] here[5] and here[6]. There's probably an edit or two more. It's not true. The italics and bolds were removed per consensus, reverted, and then reversed again while a new discussion was started. This editor needs something, possibly a block, to shut him or her up.

Note- I also put this up at The Rambling Man's Talk page....William 21:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will look into it shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said on the Rambling Man's page, it's hard to see in the history, since it's a template in a template, but at the time he made those changes, the template said "Accidents with more then 50 fatalities are italicized". He then removed the italics from accidents with more than 50 fatalities. I've explained this elsewhere, like on the talk page of the template, but he has been more interested in accusing me of personal attacks then listening to the complaints about content.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't fully absorbed all the edits to put them in context, but I'll start with one general observation, and follow with a more specific comment about the template. My general observation is that all editors should think twice (or more) before accusing someone else of lying or even committing falsehoods. It does happen, but nine time out of ten, it turns out to be an error, a misunderstanding, an understandable difference of opinion regarding a definition, a misreading of the history, a misreading of a source, etc, and I could go on. A lie requires not just that the claim be false, but you have evidence that the editor knew it was false. This is quite rare, and inaccurate accusations simply increase the drama, and reduce the possibility of reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome. I'll change gears and talk about the template next.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears that someone has decided that there is a convention for for the presentation of items in an aviation template, specifically to use non-italics for incidents with fewer than 50 deaths, and italics for 50 or more. I'll start with a question—is this distinction for the benefit of readers or editors? I assume readers, as there are better way to accomplish the goals if the intention is to help editors.
My next question is how are readers supposed to know this? User:Prosfilaes, you said, So long as this page says "Incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths shown in italics", incidents resulting in at least 50 deaths should be shown in italics, but I do not see that language. I checked some history, in case it was recently removed. Where is it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
SP, there was this talk page discussion[7], which was judged a consensus[8] to change the templates, but another editor decided to reopen the discussion (fine. Consensus can change) but also edited the template here [9]- that's why the 50 deaths wasn't there and then was there again, and the individual yearly template[10]. Another administrator didn't think the last two steps were wise. The template has been reverted, both the format page and the individual years, while the discussion continues.
Whatever the template discussion is, Prosfilaes has made a barrage of personal attacks against me. That violates WP:CIVIL. An editors feelings about any subject don't give him a right to violate it....William 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, looking now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

William came to me with a conduct issue. However, I am not Arbcom, so I do not have to honor the wall between conduct and content. Underlying the dispute about the specific edits is the question whether a navigation template should use typographical attributes such as size, weight, or design (italics versus not-italic) to signify some attribute of the elements in the list. I've read Wikipedia:Navigation templates, which doesn't prohibit such choices as clearly as I would like, but it is not supportive, perhaps because it is so rare it hasn't been an issue. We are editors, and we need to apply editorial judgement, but we ought to try to avoid imposing judgments when they are not needed. The decision to privilege the largest number of fatalities in the year, and the decision to differently privilege fatalities over 50 is an editorial decision and ought to be avoided in a template whose principle goal is to help you navigate to related articles. We cannot, and should not always avoid the editorial decision, for example, the debate about whether List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities should be changed to 100, but that's inevitable.

It is not inevitable that we have to drag that decision to a nav template. To be sure, there are items one has to do a cut off in a nav bar, for example, {{Pennsylvania cities and mayors of 100,000 population}} has a cutoff point, but note, importantly, that they didn't decide to include more and color code or use other typographical elements to signify larger and smaller cities.

So in principle, I think we ought to avoid stylistic indicators in nav templates, but I also think this was done badly. I saw the statement that italics indicated the ones over 50, and at first, missed that the distinction had been removed. I looked at {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982}} and saw the italics in Twilight Zone tragedy. I visited the article, and was puzzled at first, because it clearly did not involve 50 fatalities. Then I realized that two of the three words were italic and not the third, but that just illustrates the challenges. If that incident were more than 50, I guess you would italicize the final word as well, or maybe only that word? Either case, it will lead to some confusion. I see that small bold is for the largest incident in the year. But when you are in an article, the current article is in bold, so you will see one in bold and one in small bold, unless you are in the article with the largest number, and I don't know which convention prevails. I hope my point is clear, that using such conventions is harder than it sounds–the message isn't to find a better convention but to eschew all.

Back to conduct. User:Prosfilaes claimed that William was reverting the coding even while the footnote still existed. I haven't checked the exact sequence but it doesn't matter. While I think William was a little quick on the trigger to implement a convention that was still in discussion, the edits were in keeping with a belief that the italics and bold did not belong. Let's not debate for the moment whether it should or should not be, one should not use a disagreement about styling and timing of changes to accuse another editor of lies and falsehoods. I get that tempers rose, but editors need to work hard, especially in those circumstances, to avoid over-wrought language.

User:Prosfilaes, if you want me to say that I wish William had waited until the RfC was closed to make changes, well, I already did, see the paragraph above, but I hope you will agree that William, who is passionate about improving aircraft articles, was attempting to improve them (even if you disagreed that his edit was an improvement) and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, attempting to introduce falsehoods into articles. I hope you will do the needful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

He may not have been trying to introduce falsehoods, but he was doing so, and when I pointed it out to him, all he did was keep on doing what he was doing. When I posted on Template talk:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982, he chose not to respond. If he wants me to focus on content, he should respond when other people are trying to have content-based discussions. I'm not fighting the big issue; I was making sure that Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 1982 didn't make false claims. I did not know where the footnote was from, all I knew is that it needed to go away, and I had no interest in supporting this change.
I may have used a better choice of words, but I'd like William to take the time to read edit messages for reasons besides to take offense at them. I'd also like him to let sleeping dogs lie; this issue was dead four days before he decided to use a canned template in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=618276551&oldid=617751382 to accuse me of personal attacks. I also resent getting complaints about personal attacks when someone posts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prosfilaes&diff=617750639&oldid=608489003 to my talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
SP, he's still accusing me above after you made your ruling. A block is needed because this editor will not Drop the stick otherwise....William 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
First, I did not make a "ruling". I'm just another editor, trying to help defuse a disagreement. However, User:Prosfilaes, I'm disappointed that you continue to claim that William was introducing falsehoods. Both of you have been around long enough to see what happens in disputes. It might start with a small difference of opinion, but positions get entrenched, words are used that shouldn't be used, and then each side focuses on one aspect to the exclusion of the other. William, you are so upset about the personal attack, that you saw the second clause of the opening sentence, and missed the first one. Yes, the second phrase continues the assertion, but reread the first part. As I said before a lie is not just an error but a deliberate error. Prosfilaes has conceded it wasn't intentional. Please take that as a small step in the right direction. It would have been a better step had it not been followed by the second clause, but it is some progress. Prosfilaes, you note that you commented at the template talk page and William did not respond. To the extent that you made a content comment in the body of the post, you think William should have responded, but I want you to realize that you were making statements interpreted as personal attacks. When someone is being personally attacked, it is hard to concentrate on content. You need to clear that issue first. You wanted William to notice that his edits were inconsistent with the language on the template, but instead of wording it that way you start with Don't add lies to this page. You can't seriously expect anyone to read on calmly and respond. I'm happy William did NOT respond there, as it would likely have been suboptimal. I thank William for his restraint. Prosfilaes, I think you should edit the header, as it does constitute a personal attack. If you don't I will, but it would be better coming form you.
Are the two of you old enough to remember a classic SNL sketch involving a Jane Curtin/Dan Akroyd mock debate, in which Dan opens with Jane, you ignorant slut. I don't remember what follows, but that's the point. When something that strong is used, it drowns out everything else. Prosfilaes, please note what happened. You responded to me with a couple paragraphs. William saw five words, and nothing else. I'm trying to point that you did make a concession, and you might be disappointed that it wasn't seen, but it wasn't seen because you repeated the personal attack. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
False is not a personal attack. It's a statement about content. The template, after William was done editing it, made claims that were universally agreed upon to be false. After this encounter, I have no idea how to explain to him that his edits were factually wrong without getting accused of making a personal attack. He seems still to have no idea that the template was factually incorrect.
I have changed lies to factually incorrect. I'll note that he has made no effort to change "read this[11] instead of undoing edits you don't know." on my talk page, which is why him dumping templates telling me to comment on content on my talk page is so grating.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. As I have tried to make clear, the term "lie" is a very strong word, and is a personal attack. I am happy you changed it. I hope William is as well, but I obviously cannot speak for him. --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Move contrary to RM result

Hi, I'm sorry but this move was contrary to Talk page discussion and close. I'm sure it was done in good faith (and suspect it was done on the basis of a misuse of template request by an editor whose User Talk is full of warnings for this kind of retitling), but can you please put back at the result of discussion? Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: How very odd, I was recently burned by accepting someone's claim it was uncontroversial, so I made a point of checking this one. Must have read too quickly. Who requested it, I can't see how to tell?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. On past form I think it's this, but there may have been a template request prior/post this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoring AFC pages

Hello Sphilbrick, at WP:REFUND you have restored some articles for creation pages deleted under db-g13 templates. But you did not remove those speedy delete tags in every case, so I have spotted 3 that got redeleted soon after. ( I restored these again) So please if you restore a G13 deleted page, remove the tag! Then the requester will see the befit of your effort.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry about that. It is part of my intended process to do that every time. However, I obviously missed some. I wonder how hard it would be to make it part of the template placement process? I looked into auto-adding signatures, but was rebuffed. It would also be nice to auto-add a ping template, but my attempts to rewrite the templates in preparation to do that were also dashed. I confess I am a bit frustrated at the moment, that tasks best done by computers are not done, and worse, attempts to do so are discouraged.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we can ping IPs. But talking about automation, it could probably be done with a java script. A similar idea to the AFC review script, but triggered by the restore page could proceed to remove the db-g13 template. They are almost always on the first line. Or perhaps an edit filter could issue a prompt as a warning that it should be done, or a different edit filter could alert some one who is deleting a page less than a day after it was restored to consider the undelete, or what I do, look for the red links on WP:REFUND Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: I started thinking about how one would write a script to access the article and remove the template, which sounded tricky. It occurred to me it would be easier and cleaner if it was an option at the restore step, but I don't see how to access that process, so I raised the question at Wikipedia:Vpt#Improve_restore_functionality. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You have asked the right question there. It has also happened to me that a page I restored gets very speedily deleted again! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I restored an image yesterday, went to remove the CSD template within 30 seconds of the restoration and it was gone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Strand of Oaks press photo 2014.jpg

Could you explain what you did here? The file was deleted for violation of the non-free content criteria. You undeleted the file and added an OTRS tag, but the file is still listed as unfree, and if unfree, it still violates the non-free content criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I received an OTRS email with permission, processed the permission tag, and failed to note that it was a NFUR. I've corrected it. Thanks for your diligence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_49&oldid=653738450"