User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 55

WUWT

Seems you and I may have divergent views on WUWT. Given the astroturfing appeal by Watts, I think it's likely that some non-trivial intervention will be required. I wonder if we might work together to try to manage the discussions, on the basis that anything on which we agree is likely to pass pretty much any review? I won't be offended if you decline, since I am entirely aware that I am a rude and obnoxious bastard, but I rather hope you won't. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dinner calls, will respond, positively overall.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was frankly expecting more activity as a result of the post at WUWT. I think I've read every comment to that post. One of the common themes is the true, but missing the point observation that Wikipedia is not a valid reference for academic research. No shit, but they all say it as if it would offend Wikipedia editors. At least one commencer posted that they were unable to edit due to the protection and none noted the single revert notice (and misunderstood it). Obviously, I cannot assume that any WUWT reader who attempts to edit the article or the talk page will mention it in a comment, but I was surprised how few comments there were along those lines. My gut reaction, not having done a survey is that most of those contributing to the talk page are regulars, and clearly given the full protection, none of those editing the article are drivebys. That said the issue is contentious, and care must be taken, whether or not the discussion is influenced by a non-representative sample. I think I will take a look at who is commenting, and see if something jumps out. I see WMC in the WUWT comments and in the Wikipedia article, I trust he can be viewed as a Wikipedia editor first and a WUWT commenter second, in other words, not part of the WUWT crowd, even if he happened to become aware of the issue by reading the WUWT post.

Getting back to you main proposal, which I hope isn't swayed by my initial reaction to your RfC, I agree that if the two of us can agree on something, it ought be generally acceptable. I wonder how overlapping our Venn diagrams are? My hope is that they are more overlapping that you might think (I agree CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, I agree AGW exists, I agree ameliorative actions deserve support), but I'm still worried.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I did a cursory review of the comments at WUWT to see if I could identify anyone who might have been persuaded to come to the WP article or talk page. My review was fruitless. I didn't notice any names (other than WMC) that I recognize here. Obviously, they may be using a different name, or might have read the post and not commented, in which case I wouldn't know their name.

I also looked at recent contributors to the article and talk page. There are only a handful of IPs, and those haven't said much. Most of the registered users are names I recognize, so my intial reaction is that there is not a lot of involvement by SPAs. I do not say this to argue there is nothing to be worried about, just to suggest that among the list of challenges we face, this doesn't seem to be at the top of the list. That said, if the RfC gets organized, it may be worth a cautionary note to the closing admin.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, on reflection I think you are right. There is evidence of the flying monkeys, but I think it is reasonably obvious that they won't get very far, and I think it's likely that they have not really tried that hard: if the article was still open it would undoubtedly be a nightmare but most of these off-wiki campaigns don't really result in any long-term talk page engagement, though sometimes (e.g. Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) one of the partisans hangs around. There are a couple of people I think probably will end up topic banned. The real solution is, as usual, more eyes, and thoughtful discussion of focused proposals for change. I am less gloomy about this than I was a couple of days ago, anyway. Offer stands: if things get rough, I think we can act firmly and jointly and that will be perceived as fair. Unfortunately, most admins new to the article will just look at the whole mess and flee. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• So, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#A_Quest_For_Knowledge - feel like pitching in? My view is that AQFK's input is shedding more heat than light at this point, what's your view? Guy (Help!) 10:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, will read shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I has missed, until reviewing the history, that @A Quest For Knowledge: was the editor who originally reverted @Mann jess:, and included a reference to WP:WTW. I think this is relevant for two reasons:

1. I'd like to think that I am paying attention to the sequence of events, so if I missed it, I suspect others did as well.
2. If one reverts an edit, with a specific reference to a relevant guideline, it is understandable that a subsequent RfC, not even hinting that a relevant guideline not just exists but was cited in the reversion, might make one a tad annoyed, and think the missing information is not just relevant, but ought to be upfront.

My view is that the first attempt to insert the information near the top of the RfC was understandable (perhaps clumsily executed; I see claims it led to confusion about who said what.) If the reversion was simply because of that confusion, it is unfortunate that the substance was missed, namely that the RfC is arguably a waste of time, if participants are unaware of a highly relevant guideline.

That doesn't excuse a second attempt to re-insert it. In the same way I think Mann jess has failed to follow the spirit of BRD, so has AQFK. I would support the inclusion of a notice near the top of the RfC, but given the contentious nature of the discussion, I would have preferred a discussion, lower on the page, proposing such an edit and getting concurrence before doing it again. That said, this is small beer. In the context of Wikipedia, this isn't even a molehill. The edits of AQFK aren't going to be exhibit one in our article about perfect editing examples, but neither are they worth wasting the valuable time of the hard working contributors to the DS process.

I am literally stunned that an editor with as much experience as Mann jess would appear so ignorant of 1RR, BRD, and other established processes, which might be unknown to newbies, but should be second nature to her. I hope someone will help her out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think your opinion on the content dispute is coloring your perception of my editing. You've made several errors in summarizing my behavior.

• You alleged at AE that I broke 1RR with AQFK around the 18th. That's not true. I added content on the 17th, AQFK reverted me, and I went to the talk page. Several hours later, with no response from AQFK, I reverted and followed up on talk. I didn't revert again until the 21st. That's 1 revert within an 84 hour period.
  • It's worth noting that I hadn't even realized the article was under 1RR at this point (I missed the edit notice until very recently). That's just how I normally edit; if I add content and am reverted, I rarely re-revert.
  • It's also worth reading the section I started on talk. Please notice the timestamps, which show I was not getting any replies. When they did come days later, they barely even addressed the topic. (AQFK never responded to that section; indeed, his only contributions to the entire talk page have been 4 edits the RfC)
• You have alleged that I'm ignorant of BRD. I'd like you to review the talk pages of Watts Up With That and Anthony Watts prior to WUWT's canvassing. Please note that my first edit to Anthony Watts wasn't until the 22nd, after I'd already been engaging on the talk page since the 17th. My edit summary on the 22nd was to point to emerging consensus on the talk page. On both pages, a multitude of my edits were repeatedly reverted, and I did not immediately re-revert. I leaned heavily on discussion, but mostly received replies like this one.

I get that we disagree about what word to use on an article, but try to separate your views on the content dispute from your assessment of behavior. My early efforts were to diplomatically work to build consensus (my first edits to Talk:Anthony Watts included praise of AQFK) I've worked primarily on just adding sources to both articles, but those were removed too. After being ignored, repeatedly reverted, and told several times to just go away, I've been understandably quite frustrated, and I've certainly engaged in behavior (between the 25th-30th in particular) that you could criticize. But to allege that my first contributions violated 1rr or that I haven't encouraged discussion is simply not true.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Fair point on the edit count. Many editors voluntarily adopt a no revert without discussion rule, but that is a zero revert rule not a one revert rule. I should have included the sequence as a BRD point. I struck through the comment.
• I did guess you might have missed the 1RR note, that was mentioned in my original point
• I've read your talk page post. While the general subject of Climate Change is contentious, there are only 71 editors watching the WUWT talk page (and I bet it was fewer at the time). A few days isn't a long time.
• You've mention Anthony Watts (blogger) and the associated talk page a couple times, I have neither watchlisted, nor do I ever recall reading or editing either. Maybe I should, but for the present conversation, I fail to see the relevance
• Separating content views from behavior views is always a good idea, and sometimes difficult to manage. It is something I try to achieve, I'm sorry to see that you think I failed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the activity pre and post canvassing, I'd guess the vast majority of those 71 editors arrived on the 25th. It's precisely due to that lack of participation that WP:BOLD is useful, and why first seeking consensus on a low-traffic article, as you've suggested I do, isn't likely to have been an effective approach. Everyone focuses on the RD, but B is often just as important. It's worth noting my approach was succesful; my bold edit and discussion encouraged a great deal of participation, even if the article doesn't currently reflect all my changes.

Your complaints were posted at AE, which primarily concerns behavior on Anthony Watts (blogger). AQFK has made only 4 comments at Talk:WUWT. One of those 4 was problematic, but the two pages are inexorably tied (in fact, it's possible they should be merged). I've referenced Watts because that's a focus point of the discussion, and because you cannot fully understand the conversation at one without also following the other. That's the relevance. My change was novel to WUWT, but had been under discussion and edit wars on Anthony Watts for many months.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping we could find some common ground, but it doesn’t look like that is happening. I’ll start with a “soft” disagreement; by that I mean an issue where we see it differently but I fully concede that many respectable editors hold a position similar to yours. That issue is the importance of the B in BRD. I think the concept of bold editing was an important one in the early days of Wikipedia but is less important in a more mature Wikipedia and especially inappropriate and highly contentious articles. I hope we (the community) have a broader discussion about this sometime; I may use this kerfuffle as Exhibit 1 in the argument against the support of bold editing.

You are pushing the canvassing issue. I think it is far less important than you suggest. If the recent editing and discussions were dominated by non-regular Wikipedians who arrived as a result of canvassing we might approach this dispute one way. It appears you think that is the situation (am I wrong?), but I don’t think that is the situation. Look at the major contributors to the article after your first edit:

• Capitalismojo
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Tillman
• Guettarda
• Dave souza
• TMLutas
• DGaw
• Stephan Schulz
• Roxy the dog
• JzG
• ThePowerofX

These are all long time Wikipedians , many of whom I recognize from other climate change articles. To be sure does a small handful of IP’s, and a few new names, but the bulk of the editing is being done by the regulars. I haven’t pull together a list of contributors to the talk page but I glanced at it and it seemed to support the same conclusion, perhaps even more so. Mostly longtime regulars, mostly editors with experience in the climate change articles.

I realize you noticed that editing picked up following the canvassing but I think that’s mistaking the cause. Many of these regulars myself included are on each other’s watchlist. I don’t know whether you are on any of the regulars watchlist but my guess is you are now but were not then. Once I saw several of the regulars popping up on my watchlist I probably stopped in to see what was going on. I strongly suspect that many of the others arrived in the same way so it built on itself, as opposed to being an influx of readers of the site.

You are welcome to make a case for out on alternative view but I strongly suspect the regulars will disagree that we’ve had an influx of drive-bys.

My biggest surprise is your assertion that the AE complaint “primarily concerns behavior on Anthony Watts (blogger)”. As I already noted the opening couple of paragraphs are exclusively concerned with the site. While I did see you added some other diffs, I didn’t look at them. Most people are taught to start with the important material throw in fluff later if you really believe you did it the other way around you might want to make it clear. My entire statement was reacting to your charges about the WUWT edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:BOLD is not significant, and while I don't have a problem with you holding that view, I find it strange that you would speak negatively of an editor for following a principal that's still encouraged in the five pillars. I also disagree that canvassing had little impact. The version before the blog post there were 5 sections (totaling 1,601 words) spanning the last month. Within two days there were 16 sections (19,459 words), 12 times the content. A week later, there are 23 sections (37,639 words), 23 times the content. Your pointer to editors who were active before the blog post implies none of WUWT's viewers were wikipedians who hadn't yet visited the article. I think that is demonstrably untrue. Obviously, some wikipedians read his blog, and took him up on his directive to change the article. Yes, the canvassing has undeniably impacted editor participation and the editing environment.

I organized my post at AE with the issue I felt was easiest to communicate. It's unfortunate you decided not to read past the first 2 paragraphs before commenting at AE, because the entire rest of my complaint is about behavior at Anthony Watts (39 of the 49 diffs). Had there not been emerging consensus that AQFK's behavior on Anthony Watts was disruptive already, I wouldn't have brought the RfC issue to AE at all. It's your prerogative to decide how you participate here, but I'm unclear why you'd hold those choices against me.

Looking back, your complaints appear to be: 1) I followed an editing guideline you think should be deprecated, but is not 2) I discussed a violation of our behavioral guidelines, and 3) I've referenced events on an article you haven't edited. I'm sorry these things bother you, but given they do, you're right that we are unlikely to find common ground. With that in mind, I'll leave you be. I guess I'll see you around at the article... Enjoy your night.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I wrote a long response but decided to scap scrap it. I'll make just one small point. You claim your main complaint (AE) is about an article not identified by name in the complaint. I bet that's a first in AE history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Muwahidun

Thank you for deleting Muwahidun. There are actually several more redirects just like that one. Please check out Special:Contributions/Interned gghyyt1 if you have a chance. I would have tagged the rest for G5 but there are a lot! Thanks again, Tavix | Talk  20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tavix: |I think I got most, hopefully all, of them. Thanks for identifying them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think there might be a couple more accounts. I found Special:Contributions/Ghyyrirt that have some junk redirects to Dubai, for example... Tavix | Talk  20:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Got 'em--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you ready for the entire list? Instead of giving you a bunch of notifications, I just compiled everything. Let me know if you don't want to go through it all and I'll just do some tagging (at least I have it somewhere). I really appreciate your help. Tavix | Talk  22:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Kuwii hinugu yiri - a few redirects, a couple categories

Special:Contributions/23 year old bored guy - 13 redirects

Special:Contributions/Scratched those bonduns - few redirects, few categories

Special:Contributions/Run hewdgf - four redirects

Special:Contributions/Needwaternpepperpls - 8 redirects + Sunando Sen

Special:Contributions/I'm feeling slightly mellow - 15ish? redirects

Special:Contributions/Pulled u policc - 2 redirects

Special:Contributions/Landedon myshowdr - 4 redirects

Special:Contributions/Northsouthblock - 7 redirects

Special:Contributions/Letitbefelt - 3 redirects

Special:Contributions/Buggeybagge_look-a-like - 7ish redirects, 1 category, 1 article

Special:Contributions/Hhplactube - few redirects, few categories

My father in law passed away a few minutes ago (he lives with us), so not at the moment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'm so sorry to hear that. Please don't worry about this, you have other things to take care of. Real life comes first. Tavix | Talk  22:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Pan American Games

Hi! Unfortunately, no I won't be there, cause i'm not living in Toronto. Wish you the best! Regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting feedback on sandbox

I've been looking at the WUWT talk page, where you seem to contribute quite a bit. I have a draft of something that may or may not be relevant in my sandbox. I'm a bit unclear on the Not a Forum guideline, so I was wondering if you would be so kind as to take a look. I'd like to avoid polluting the talk page with stuff that doesn't belong.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm mulling over how best to respond. However, I am hiking a segment of the Appalachian Trail tomorrow, so may not be online. Don't read my tardiness in responding as lack of interest.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No rush, happy hiking, my sister did a bunch of it like 20 years backMissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I commented here--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks, the "officially discouraged" part is what I needed to know. I found a place where it is, or ought to be, on topic, thanks.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

...

Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Collegiate sports (USA)... GWFrog (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Signed up --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lochbroom FM

Hi, I see you were involved when the Loch Broom FM article was deleted in December 2010. I have written a new article under Lochbroom FM which appears to be the correct spelling of the current organisation. I hadn't seen the old article but I guess if it was deleted there wouldn't be any details worthy of adding to the new article? I was thinking that it would be appropriate to use the Loch Broom FM page as a redirect to the new article. Please let me know if you have any feedback or concerns. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Drchriswilliams: I sent you a copy of the original article by email, as you can see there wasn't much. I agree with your redirect comment, so I made it into a redirect.

Deleted Big Noble page

Hi. You apparently deleted draft of a page for Big Noble. I was about to start drafting one myself but wanted to see the deleted one first to see if it has the same content. Thanks.Tampico1 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Heads up that this is the probable sockpuppet of a user uninterested in having their edits retained, so don't waste too much time digging anything up here. --McGeddon (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's hold off a couple days to see how the investigation shapes up; if it turns out to be a false positive, I'll be happy to email you contents (if there weren't problems such as copyright). Please let me know how it turns out, I won't be monitoring it regularly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Grossly offensive

I wouldn't have seen this, had it not come up on a drama board, which linked to Eric Corbett's comment

Let me be clear. I am well-aware that we have a problems with the way some editors treat other editors. We need to work on how to make this a more productive editing environment. I am not unaware that women make up a minority of participants, and I am in favor of learning why, and what to do about it. We know some of the answers, but not all. I have worked on compiling relevant resources related to the gender gap.

I am in favor of workshops which address problems and propose solutions. However, I think those workshops should be characterized as "teaching editors simple, everyday ways to show respect for all editors in their communities". I don't even mind that there may be a subtext that actions demeaning women are more common, and need more attention, than the reverse. But I think the bald statement "teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women" is blatanly sexist, pejorative, supportive of false sterotypes and ought to be stamped out, not funded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Williams (basketball)

Hi Sphilbrick,

I wouldn't mind allowing your article to take the place of mine. Your article has more information and is preferred. I'll integrate the section covering college aspects into your section. Robert4565 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Neha Sharma Murder Case

You deleted the article Neha Sharma Murder Case:

(Deletion log); 14:23 . . Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Neha Sharma Murder Case ‎(Non-notable event and names suspects (attack))

Two questions: 1) Why is it non-notable? It has been covered by many all the major English and Hindi language newspapers in India. The case is being followed by the highest circulating English paper and the lack of progress was mentioned. I think it is notable.

2) Why should it not name suspects? Do on-going murder investigations not have suspects? Do we not name them till they are convicted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detrainman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Detrainman There are, unfortunately, many murders, most of which are not notable. Many of them get some mention in the news. The mere existence of an item in a newspaper is not enough to make it notable. In this particular case there are two newspaper articles cited. Notable murders typically have far more references. Your note suggest there are more; I suggest you start this in draft space and add enough references to ensure that it is notable before moving it to main space, if you think it deserves inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Got it. Thank you for your quick response. Detrainman (talk)

Question: How do I get my old draft back? Detrainman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Detrainman Here it is: User:Detrainman/Neha_Sharma_Murder_Case (For future use, it is polite to ping editors, but not needed on their own talk page, we all get a notice when our talk page is edited).--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UNITAID logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UNITAID logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ticket

Can you take a look at ticket:2015071410020429? Seems related to ticket:2012100610006567 but I'm not sure why they'd suddenly decide it's a copyvio. If you want me to handle it just let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone already replied with what seems to be the most appropriate answer §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for any delay in response, I have been out of the country since 14 July and just returned today and did not access Wikipedia while I was away.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)