User talk:Philg88/Archive 32

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem with a word
Hello! I'm having trouble finding the right word in some of the text about The Wall. In sentences like these: "The governor and major general Anders Sparfeldt fitted out parts of the city wall, the towers and the gate towers, with firearms.", "The tower was outfitted with new internal wooden floors and were made accessible via stairs." and "The barrel vaulted room in the tower is equipped with benches." Which of the words is best to use when talking about constructions: "fitted out", "outfitted" or "equipped"? Or none of these? Suggestions? Cheers, w.carter -Talk  11:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @W.carter:  Hello kompis! In this context, verbs like "build" and "construct" are better than "fit out" or "equip". I can't really explain why, I guess it's a mother tongue thing. It might be easier if you tip me the wink when the article is complete and I will do a quick CE on it. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! Exactly the kind of comment I was hoping for. Thanks! The Swe word for all of these is the same and it's bordering on "build", hence the confusion. Also thanks for the ce offer, I'll be sure to be back then. Best, w.carter -Talk  09:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the subject of articles: Can I !vote on the Featured list candidates/List of church ruins on Gotland/archive1 even though I made a few edits and took some of the pics, or should I stay out of it? I would of course love to see that list as a FL. Cheers, w.carter -Talk  23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @W.carter:  I don't see any reason why you can't vote. You aren't the article creator or a major contributor and I don't think pictures count. Good luck!  Philg88 ♦talk 06:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit please
Hello! I have a copyedit request for you. Can you please copyedit this? I haven't added sources yet because you will face huge citation clutter for which you can have problem copyediting. It is going to be a future FL candidate ;-) Thanks!  Jim Car ter  12:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to go in a wikibreak next week so I was wondering if you can CE in this week because there are some other works (adding sources) that I have to do. Thank you very much!  Jim Car ter  17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jim Cartar:  No problem, will be done tomorrow or Thursday.  Philg88 ♦talk 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jim Cartar:  ✅ Don't forget that you need to force the TOC to the top of the article and add appropriate citations. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I hope magic word  will do the work. Btw any other things that need to be done before nominating it for FL? I mean any other comments or suggestions?? Thank you very much!  Jim Car ter  08:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any experience with FLs so I can't really make any useful suggestions. Having said that, from my reading of the FL criteria it should have a lead just like any other article, which it currently doesn't. If you create a lead you won't need . Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

question
Phil, can you please take a look at the page move discussion here and move the page to the supported title, and of course lock it again? It's been 7 days and seems to be stale now. Also, please include if appropriate, the straw poll results of the initiator and the two editors below my ivote here. I would have notified them of the formal page move section but I didn't want it to appear that I was canvassing. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @SW3 5DL:  ✅ per consensus at the talk page. Let me know if you need further assistance. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks, Phil. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Early closure
About your closure of ANI#Admin_decides_and_then_gets_involved_to_support_themselves I started, . (in your summary: "There is nothing actionable here").

First your conclusion completely bypasses the request in the OP, while that request is not answered to or concluded upon at all. I understand that ANI is not limited to requests that not ask for "block someone" only.


 * Also two other admins responded, both not conclusive now. Important note:  made a mistake I cannot correct any more: "Mevarus did not move the article twice in 33 hours, nor indeed in any number of hours: he or she moved it only once." By Mevarus: 19:25, 1 November 2014 03:54, 3 November 2014. That is 32h24min apart. (Note that the first move was marked 'minor', why? is this why JamesBWatson did not see it?).


 * made a sensible note.
 * And of course you left me no option to respond to the posts the editor/admin in case made.

I ask you to reconsider and reopen the thread with all this. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that any useful purpose would be served by reopening the discussion. As I said in my closing remarks, there is an ongoing discussion here about the article in question and a whole bunch of others that were moved and issues over their proper capitalisation. If you have something to add to the debate, please do it there—there is no sense in reverting the original move until that process is complete. Philg88 ♦talk 14:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The discussion you refer to had nothing whatsoever to do with Gaza beach explosion (2006). It was an entirely different discussion about entirely separate articles. The discussion at Gaza beach explosion was about reversion of an article move, repeatedly carried out by an editor now blocked as a sock of a serial puppeteer. I don't know how it became tangled with the other articles, but it is not mentioned in nor related to that discussion. Please revisit this, since your mistake is causing serious confusion. RolandR (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As RolandR says: you are referring and linking to a totally different topic. In doing so, you did not react to one single point I made here. And no, I won't do an ANI discussion on your talkpage. Please reread my OP here and keep the right topic in mind. One extra question: was this same confusion already inp play in that early closure? -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic I am referring to is the one that I closed this morning and referenced in 's original posting here. The whole issue revolves around the original report that Gaza beach explosion (2006) had been moved, which was inaccurately described as vandalism. As it happened, another editor had concurrently requested reversions of around 100 moves involving changes in capitalisation as uncontroversial, including the one in question. rightly spotted that such moves required further discussion and FWIW, I concurred. So, until those discussions are complete, Gaza beach explosion (2006) should stay where it is and there is no point in discussing it further at ANI. I hope that's clear but if you think some other action is required then please let me know. Philg88 ♦talk 18:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. my links here link to an other ANI post (didn't you check?). My OP there was not about capitalisation at all (checkable). My OP was not about the move/notmove itself (another misreading by you). My OP was about the actions by Anthony Appleyard (as can be read). The diversion to another discussion, you are prolonging here from whoever started it, is not an answer to my OP and does not and contain any reason for closing, simply because it is not about my OP. On top of that, in your latest reply here you are diving into another topic (related but not the essence), so you are adding arguments to your closing statement. An argument, should be in the ANI discussion as accontribution. As you did it, you did not conclude the discussion but closed it on your own preferences. (off-topic as it is, I repeat).


 * In short: you have not not responded to my OP at ANI, nor to my well-linked points here. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You said "JamesBWatson made a mistake". The reason for that is that for some reason (I have no idea why) only one of the moves is listed in the page log, which is here. It is most unfortunate that you were wrongly accused of inaccuracy, but I hope you accept that, under the circumstances, it was not really a mistake by me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No issue with you, JamesBW (the first move was sneakily marked "minor", does that explain?). The point is that Philg88 closed the thread without opportunity to correct it. Now it reads like I am the lying guy. (I'm sure we two would have cleared this thing in a minute). The thread was closed in a pool of nonsense, as Philg88 shows in this thread, too. Another case of admin-does-not-read-and-cannot-be-called-to-reason. -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did answer your original report. The closing comments begin with "Nothing actionable here", which seems pretty clear to me—what you describe as "off-topic" information provides context. Please can we now move on and get back to the business of building an encyclopedia. Philg88 ♦talk 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at least JamseBW recognised that one mistake had to be corrected. You do not even acknowledge. But more important: my OP was not about capitalised names at all. As the title and the request says. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me try and make this as clear as I can. Nothing is actionable in your ANI report. acted in the best interests of Wikipedia, which is what administrators are supposed to do.  explained this to you, albeit with a mistaken comment, which has now been struck from the record. I closed the discussion and provided some context as to how this situation arose both here and at ANI. So there is nothing more to discuss and I would implore you once more to move on. Philg88 10:05, 7 November 2014 (sign added -DePiep (talk))
 * I totally agree with Philg88. It seems to me that DePiep is making far too much of some rather trivial issues, which should have been dropped before this. However, since DePiep is concerned about the inaccurate suggestion that he or she has made an inaccurate statement, I have struck my comment in the AN/I discussion, and added a brief note indicating how the error arose. i hope we can now all move on to other, more constructive, things, as Philg88 suggests. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the issue I rose is large or small, I disagree and the closure is makes no sense. Apart from this correction, JBW, I was not able to address your and other contributions (as I wrote in this thread). -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re #2 JBW: An "inaccurate suggestion" you call that now, JamesBW? A plain wrong statement it was. Why are you downplaying? (wasn't it a "fair-enough, I strike" then?). I am not blaming you for the mistake, I do blame the closer for not giving the opportunity to address that in the thread (nor for you to reconsider your post; and other editors taking your word for it when it was there). What does surpise me, a bit, is that you here take the wise old man approach to conclude for us that the closure was correct while, must be a coincidence, it supported your position in the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But DePiep is RIGHT. A contested and politically-motivated move was made repeatedly to an article covered by special arbitration measures, by an editor now indefinitely blocked as a sock of a serial puppeteer and edit-warrior in this topic area. DePiep opened a thread on the talk page of the moved article, requesting a return to the earlier name. In the discussion, the only editors opposing this request were those selectively canvassed by the sock. Nevertheless, an admin rejected the proposal. When DePiep contested this, it became clear that, for a reason not yet clear, the admin had lumped this article together with several other requested moves, all of which related to capitalisation and had been submitted by another editor.

The upshot of this is that a puppeteer, currently blocked for three months, has succeeded in making a contentious edit, and then, defended by several like-minded editors canvassed by one of his puppets, persuaded an admin to accept this abuse of Wikipedia. You may think there is nothing more to say on this; I disagree. Contentious edits made by a block-evading sock should be reverted, not endorsed. RolandR (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @RolandR:  You seem to have overlooked the fact that the article remained uncontested under its current title from 26 October 2008‎ until 3 September 2014, when  moved it. Please wait and see how the RM turns out and let that be the end of it.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * re RR, factual correction: I did not start that "Move request" on the talkpage, copypasted my signature into there (ouch). I had asked for a Uncontroversial technical request to revert the move warring second move. It was A.A. who then copypasted my words, plus my signature, into that fullblown talkpage, adding a formal RM template envelope. . This explains why my "RM motivation" there reads so out-of-place.
 * More background. This abuse of my quote & signature JamesBWatson called helping me: "[user A.A.] chose to start a discussion on it, saving you from the trouble of doing so" . (Not incidentally, and what I mentioned in the ANI OP, is that A.A. in that same edit got involved with a !vote statement; also to note is that A.A. themselves did not mention the "capitalisation" as an explanation). RolandR, you are not the only one misguided by that A.A. edit. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * re : again you show: you did not read my request at ANI. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not copy your signature directly. Each of those move requests, if seen directly by looking at page Requested moves/Technical requests, has a clickable "move" option and a clickable "discuss" option. I clicked the "discuss" option, which activated some already-set-up function in Wikipedia which copies the discussion as you saw. (I am a "he".) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Moved to User:Philg88/Barnstars

GOCE October Blitz award
Moved to User:Philg88/Barnstars

Coordinates RfC
Hey, you might be interested in this RfC about coordinates. Actually, it started out as an RfC, but it's looking like it's going to fail for lack of preliminary planning. But there's still some discussion happening to which you might care to contribute. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for the heads up. Philg88 ♦talk 18:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United States
I semi-protected the page before I noticed you had blocked the IP. I suspect they will be back again anyway. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up . Two IPs from the same range now blocked so the protection should save us from a third attempt. Philg88 ♦talk 13:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Watts (merchant), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Restoration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pornographic video game
Regarding your close of this AfD, respectfully, I think that your interpretation of the consensus as "keep" was incorrect. There were two users arguing in favour of keeping the article based on sources they provided, however there were good arguments against the suitability of those sources from several other editors, and good arguments that the content was better covered in existing articles. I think at best this should have been relisted since there was ongoing debate about the sources and about proper redirect targets, or closed as "no consensus". Obviously I'm involved since I was participating in the discussion; may I propose you ask another admin to review your close? Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, . When closing an AfD, more weight is attributed to keep !votes where they have a basis in policy and where the topic/content of the underlying article supports that—the decision is not based on numbers alone. I explained in my closing comments why the article should be kept based on its capability for expansion/referencing based on extant reliable sources but if you are unhappy with that then you are free to take the matter to deletion review. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 15:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying to my comment here, but my concern about the sources remains. I have opened a DRV case - I will add the template below. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Pornographic video game
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pornographic video game. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ivanvector (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your closure
I'm puzzled how you could construe that there was consensus for a move at talk:Vivekananda. Would you care to explain?LeadSongDog come howl!  21:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @LeadSongDog:  Hi there and thanks for the message. The closure was based on their being six !votes (plus ) in favour of the move with two opposes. That seems to me a clear consensus for the move to proceed.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you counted !votes instead of evaluating arguments? I'm sure you're aware that is not what wp:CONSENSUS means. Please take a closer look and assess the arguments. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The move !vote arguments are better reasoned than the opposes and their are more of them. To me, that equals consensus to move. If you are unhappy with that interpretation you are free to take the matter to Move review Philg88 ♦talk 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Argh, I hate drama, but ok. Thanks for looking at it. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @LeadSongDog:  So do I and I hope that there are no hard feelings over this. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 23:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * None at all. There's no point personalizing disagreements here, it's all about the work. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New user
Hello! Apologies for bringing more trouble to your page, but I'm at a bit of a loss about what to do. I have met and helped a new user at the Teahouse. He is writing lots of articles, but have so far not interacted much with other editors. He is very sure of himself and insist he "knows English" and editing, which is not really the case. I have tried to suggest that he get some help from copy editors and others, but no luck. Should I just leave it be, or should I "do" something else? It is really a shame since he seems very capable and the articles are not bad, I just think it would be better if he learned to edit properly before creating more articles. Suggestions? My suggestion to him, his reply. Best, w.carter -Talk  13:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've had a look at German Guatemalan and I'm afraid that it falls somewhat short of the quality standards required for the encyclopedia. In light of that I would say to that although anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, a degree of competence is required for the task — "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess." Halias' first language is clearly not English, so they might be better off helping to improve the encyclopedia in their mother tongue. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)