User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 14

Followup on unfairly alleged puppet-ness
Thanks Sphilbrick, much appreciated ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersgoldpan (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Thanks for the note. Take a step back and look at this very niche private equity firm focused on Cambodia Leopard Capital. Amazingly, this small group and its investments have received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia - more than the Blackstone Group, Carlyle, KKR, TPG, etc.. Instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting indpendently. As mentioned in the investigation, the edits were all very similar in style and content (restoring items removed and originally created by another related editor).

I only got involved because the edits were largely promotional, spam focused on companies of questionable notability. I put a few of the most egregious articles through AfD and they were deleted. The sockpuppet was only an issue because of the content being repeatedly added by a determined user with a major conflict of interest.

I would like to assume good faith and did so initially but it is just not believable that these accounts are unrelated. The guy said on my talk page he was "led" to the Leopard Capital article. On his first day of editing - he made a handful of edits before going to Leopard Capital and making dozens of edits. The same style of volumnious incremental edits that the other related accounts had also made. I am going to make a suggestion that this guy focus on something else - if he cannot do anything on wikipedia other than promote this group and its portfolio of investments I am going to go through another sockpuppet investigation. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

 * In my view, it is pretty obvious that you are simply engaging a new account to do the same things that created the issues several months back. However, I will attempt to assume good faith.  I would suggest you first focus on topics unrelated to (i) Leopard Capital, (ii) related personnel, and (iii) related investments and businesses.  If, as you suggest, you really have a genuine interest in various topics not based on WP:COI then I will not press this further.  However, if you continue to make edits that are substantilly promotional, I am going to press this further.  Please be aware that I already watch every one of the articles that have been of interest to this group of accounts.  I will also keep track of any new editor that edits these articles.  |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

random cookies cuz im bored

&mdash;  Abhishek   Talk 12:52 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

Patulia high school
Restored  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks-- SPhilbrick  T  18:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your help with Agee article
Sphilbrick, I am very encouraged. Thank you! Delighted to work with you on the Mary Cunningham Agee article. To be truthful, I had to look up "hagiographic." I am fascinated that this is the theme you picked up on. It would not be NPOV to write that many people from little folks to international leaders consider Ms. Agee to be a living saint - even though it happens to be true. Her work, who she really is, what gets her up and going every day IS a servant's heart. She met with Mother Teresa in college. She was for all intents and purposes raised by a wonderful priest who founded the first Aquinas House among the Ivy League colleges. She could have easily been a nun. Instead, she went to Wellesley and HBS, worked her tail off, bashed her blonde head through the glass ceiling in the 80's - which was not pleasing to the good old boys network in Detroit - and ended up in all the national papers accused for the oldest crime in history. Silly now. But life was different in the 80's and women in upper management were a threat to the establishment. She landed on her feet after the Bendix media circus, was highly successful with Seagram's and then walked away from it all to found and run an international charity (for 25 years) that has empowered thousands of women when nobody was there for them. She is a women’s activist whose mission is peace. Her message through the years (hands on) has been about healing, compassion, hope, tangible not theoretical help, communicating respectfully, finding a common ground. She is brilliant, articulate, passionate and sacrificial. (Not NPOV, I understand, but true nonetheless.) She has had a private audience with Pope and collaborates with everyone from James Dobson to the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver (founding TNN Board Member) to the late John Cardinal O’Connor to countless University Presidents. So much in the article is understated that it is hard for me to reduce it further and still tell her story. For this reason alone, I look forward to working with you. With your experience and independent insights, we’ll get it right. Count me in. Omnibus170 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you are as pleased with me after you see what I have to say:) I was checking into some reference issues - while it is decidedly not a requirement that references be online, you can understand that it is easier for online readers if such online references exist. In one case, I found an online reference, but there are some technical questions whether it is preferable to use it; that' kind of cryptic, but I'll follow up on that later. I'll work on a list of points I find troubling, and we can try to sort them out.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ack, forgive me for butting in. You prefer online refs? Yukky. The Internet sucks. It is not peer-reviewed. Anyone can say anything. Give me peer-reviewed journals or books by established editors/publishers every single time. Please think twice before saying that online refs are preferred. Reliability is always and everywhere strongly preferred over convenience. – Ling.Nut 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You and I aren't communicating so well today are we :) In this case, I think you misunderstood my point, but it obviously wasn't clear, so I welcome the chance to elaborate:
 * I always want high quality sources, and agree that high quality sources are often not available online. However, given that one has selected a particular source as a citation, it is often the case that the source is available both in printed form and online. When this is the case, I prefer that an online reference be included. Of course, online links can go bad, so the ideal situation is a fully formed citation which can identify the printed version, along with url which may provide quick access. My response was prompted by noting several references without urls, including references to the New York Times, which I would expect to be able to find online.--  SPhilbrick  T  14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have an excuse for my obtuseness. – Ling.Nut 14:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh I'd like to join you.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the beer. I could use many, many more than merely one. – Ling.Nut 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

geocoordinates
Thanks. I do my best with some of the historical ones; oftentimes it's a matter of tracking down piddly details spread across multiple pages. For example, with the Mystic Massacre, I tracked down the article about the fort where it occurred. That gave me that it was located atop a hill on the west side of town, so I went into Terrain mode on Google Maps to find the top. I like tricky ones like that. For the haunted museum, I had to spot a shed-sized building using Bing Maps' tilted aerial view.

For rivers, sometimes I'll tag the mouth. Often for linear things you can use where they intersection stuff: where bridges cross rivers, where they cross state lines, where trails start and end, etc.

I don't think there's a specific standard for a lot of the less-common things. It's a judgement call, I guess. I do my best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Restricting Urbanrenewal
Hi User:Sphilbrick

Can you check up on User:Urbanrenewal or talk to see with him what it is that to his mind enables him to draw up a list of subjects on which I cannot contribute? As User:discospinster has mentioned previously, evidence for his accusations of me have been made without him offering evidence and as DS states, I'm not implicated? UR seems very restrictive, as if he's "protecting a patch", but perhaps this goes without saying on Wikipedia, particularly with users like UR who are interested in private equity, who knows? I'm new....Can we at least get UR to state why I am being restricted by him? Thanks for your help, more informations on my Discussion page

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Will respond shortly(perhaps 2 hours), as I am in a meeting at the moment.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

<-- First, I've never (to my knowledge) interacted with Urbanrenewal before, so I do not have particular knowledge about why s/he (I don't even know if UR is male or female) drew up that list. I do have some guesses, and will guess away, and follow up with AR if necessary. I will correspond with AR, but I want to run something by you first.

As background, dealing with sockpuppets occupies a lot of time of many admins. It isn't something I do much of, partly because it requires some skills I have not developed, and partly because it doesn't interest me. However, I do accept that sockpuppets are a major problem to the project and must be addressed. When it is clear that someone is a sockpuppet, the procedures are straightforward. The complication comes when someone looks like they may be, but the evidence isn't clear.

It is bad for the project to falsely accuse someone, just as it is bad for the project to miss that someone is acting as a sockpuppet. Classic Type I and type II errors. Neither Urbanrenewal nor I have the authority to tell you that you cannot work on certain articles. That type of restriction can occur, but there is a process for approving it, and the simple statement by an editor is not the process. That said, I understand the concern by AR that the editing of Leopard Capital looks suspicious. I haven't looked at any of the others on the list, except that I am aware you have edited The Royal Group. I think the concerns of AR are valid, and I want to support steps that would ensure that the editing of that and other articles meets our BP:NOV policy.

My initial reaction is that the list proposed by UR is too long. I intend to discuss this with UR, but I would like to suggest the following:

Although neither UR for I have the authority to unilaterally insist that you do not edit any particular article, there is valid concern that some inappropriate editing (not necessarily by you) has taken place. Would you be willing to voluntarily agree to refrain from editing Leopard Capital for some period of time (say, six months), so we can continue to monitor the situation, and figure out what is going on.

If this works for you, I will approach UR and attempt to make a case that the proposed restriction set out by UR is too broad, but if you would not voluntarily accept some restriction, we may have to go a different route.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mannar Jawahar
It is a copyvio, see the talk. I've accessed the site and copied it to the talk.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still cannot access, but you could, so I'll go ahead and delete-- SPhilbrick  T  17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  17:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

tb
i just felt like it. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me, let's do it in a new section below, or on your talk page, whichever is more convenient for you, but not User:Dismas's talk page. My bad for responding to you there.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's talk here. Is there really a need to do that? “I don't think you can [satisfy criteria]”? “nothing”? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I explained "“I don't think you can [satisfy criteria]”?" at Talk:Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit. If you still don't understand my point, I've found it helpful to ask the other person to explain what they think they heard, so we can iron out any misunderstanding. However, I had an edit conflict there, so I don't think you've read it yet. As for "nothing" that's short for "nothing to see here", but when I see that phrase, it is almost like a traffic accident, some people feel the need to look so I abbreviated it. Does that make sense? Based on your comment, you were just feeling silly, which is fine, but I have a lot of talk page watchers, and I didn't want them wondering what was going on.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, excuse me? “you were just feeling silly”? I know that you're trying to “iron out any misunderstanding”, but I was not feeling silly, and I, think it is silly, that you, thought that I was silly? You pretty much nullified your previous statement. Please see Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit. regard A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, you weren't just feeling silly? What on earth does "i just felt like it" mean then? Were you seriously trouting me without an explanation? I AGF'd and assumed you were making a joke. If not, please explain yourself.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to drag out your misunderstanding on the article edit page.

I said “I don't think you can” because I don't think you can. I didn't bold "you". I don't think you can, because I don't think it can be done. But I'm not an expert on FUR (Fair Use Rationale) so maybe I'm wrong. Will it make you feel better if I replace "you" with "anyone"? That's what it means, but if you thought it was an insult, I'll be happy to refactor.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * edit conflict: I was making a joke, but since you said “Based on your comment”, instead of based on your TROUT, I thought you meant my previous COMMENT. And, yes, I was trouting you as a JOKE. I am sorry if I didn't explain, but I think it's unnecessary to COLLAPSE the box, don't you think? And, no, I was NOT feeling silly, not ever today, this week, nor this month, I can guarantee you. In fact, I barely thought of the word or feeling until you brought it up. What I did is pretty much like gifting someone without an explanation. You would be appreciative of the gift. If someone gave a homeless man food without a note, he would take/acknowledge it. I'm sorry for raising my voice on your page, but I didn't expect offense to the trout. I also see that you didn't say a thing to my gift to you, here? Why was that? I again apologize for raising my voice.  A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you unaware of what a trout means? It means you are telling the recipient they did something unbelievably stupid. I couldn't imagine that you meant that, so I assumed it was a joke. Am I wrong?-- SPhilbrick  T  02:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am definitely unaware of what it means. I read the page, and I thought that meant “slapping someone with a trout as a joke”. And yes, you are correct that I meant it as a joke. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should reread the Whacking with a Wet Trout page. It is done to convey that someone has done something clueless. It is an attempt to use some levity in what otherwise is a quite serious issue. However, I accept your explanation that you thought it was just a joke.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And also, yes, it would half solve this if you “replace "you" with "anyone" ”. I would very much appreciate it if you did that. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅-- SPhilbrick  T  02:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * so very much. Now please go here, as I have insulted you with something that is totally not a gift that is directly below this section :)  Just to clear any misunderstanding, I was trying to make a joke, sarcastically. I was not, in any way, trying, implying, or suggesting that I was or am going to insult you. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in the above comment (not immediate above, above the comment above this one), I am not trying to imply or suggest that you ARE homeless, because you obviously are not. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Please see this. He said “Eh, I was feeling bored. TROUT ME!” So, I assume people WANT to get trouted?? Please also see this, it says, “This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.” I trouted you as a joke. And, I think that is the main purpose? So, now that makes me think, why did you take offense? And fine, if you really don't want to be trouted, try here.   A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please don't use abbreviations, such as “ I AGF'd”, and “you cannot write a FUR” (at ) regard A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to thank you again for clearing any and all misunderstanding between us. Also, I am going to collapse the section at Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit, if you don't mind. Or should I strike it out like this ? Or how about deleting the whole section altogether, without any striking out. I just didn't want anyone to see your comment: “Responded at my talk page”, which may encourage other passerbys to go to your talk page, attracting attention. So, if you don't mind, I'm going to strike out that comment, okay? Thanks, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have collapsed the section under the heading “not good”. I couldn't think of any other title, and you are obviouly free to change it. Thanks, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

insult to you

 * I like cookies, thanks.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Link relevant to RFF
Hi Sphilbrick,

I'm short on time right now, but you might find something through the links here of relevance to RFF.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

UrbanRenewal & Leopard Capital
User:Urbanrenewal User:Sphilbrick,

Please co-operatively respond to -each- instance where a question mark appears (some of my previous questions have gone unanswered)

1. Despite the topic of Cambodia's economy NOT being unrelated to (i), I suppose you're still in good faith allowing me to contribute to Wiki's directly to do with Cambodia's economy, or am I misinterpreting you?

2. IF interested in Cambodian private equity, it's likely one will be led to Cambodia's largest & only private equity firm - do you agree or disagree?

3. You state LC edits prior to my own were, "largely promotional spam, focused on companies of questionable notability". However except for the Kingdom Breweries and Nautisco links I inserted (for which I apologise and did so not knowing Wikipedia's external links policy), of the many, many other edits I did, precisely what contributions of mine amounted to 'promotional spam' (the history is there, please point this out)?

4. You say previous LC edits are "all very similar in style and content (restoring items removed and originally created by another related editor)". Precisely what items did I add to the LC page that were previously removed from the LC page?

5. Precisely what conduct of my own account makes "it just not believable that these [other, suspicious] accounts are unrelated" to my own account?

UR, you claim that "this small [Leopard Capital] group" has "received an inordinate amount of focus on Wikipedia". However in consideration of the Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, I object to your claim that LC has received an 'inordinate amount of focus' as being potentially invalid. Considering Wikipedia’s list of private equity firms mentions 204 firms, only 53 of which are not headquartered in America, and 0 which are based in Cambodia...if anything, to aid the very serious and increasingly important Wikipedia Project of Countering Systemic-Bias, it follows that LC and its like actually require more focus, not less.

6. Why is this not the case?

UR, you state as evidence for my having a conflict of interest that "instead of coming from one account - these edits were spread across multiple accounts that were designed to look like they were acting independently". This hardly seems fair to me, insofar as applying this argument as evidence for your claim of my alleged conflict of interest, would mean every Wikipedia entry previously encountering legitimate conflict of interests could not ever have any more contributions made to its page -- > this is an instance of a new editor minus a conflict of interest editing the page to improve it overall by reducing bias, improving tone and shortening length.

Above are six questions. In good faith, I ask that you answer each six directly.

Cheers (Petersgoldpan (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC))

PS Extremely sorry for inconveniencing you Sbrick, like I said I'm new & unfamiliar - and yes, I'll accept your 6 month suggestion though prefer 3 if not none at all !
 * I don't plan to respond to those questions. (I will look to see if UR does.) I have not reviewed your history in any detail, other than the couple of articles where you and I have been involved. I jumped into the sockpuppet investigation, because I liked what you were doing with the Kith Meng article, and I thought the concerns might be coincidental. Your questions persuade me that my hopes were misplaced. Sorry, but if you were trying to make a case that your main goal is not to work primarily on Leopard Capital, you achieved the opposite. However, I made the proposal in good faith, and I will chat with Urbanrenewal and see what happens.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions
..How may I ask did my "questions persuade [you] that [your] hopes were misplaced" ??? They just prove my point!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersgoldpan (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My hope was that you were completely independent of the other editors editing Leonard Capital. I no longer think that is likely. Got to go.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiroaki Yura
I didn't see a date for the text on the page in question, but I did note that it was for a 2002 competition, so made a (perhaps unwarranted) assumption of the age of the text. In addition, the same text popped up (using Google) in multiple locations, including, as I recall, a Last.fm entry, so the text didn't seem to have been exported from Wikipedia. The throughly promotional tone certainly didn't help matters. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Response
Castle Island (New York) was my first article from scratch and now that I think about it probably still to this day does not have references on the article page, though I could be wrong it has been awhile since I've looked at it. If it had been speedily deleted I may have given up and never gone on to write my second article from scratch Port of Albany-Rensselaer, and then work on getting Pine Bush and Dongan Charter up to GA status and creating numerous other articles (some better than others). That is the point I was trying to make. That I'm not a great editor, but I'm a hard worker and if we discourage others who arent great or perfect from the start maybe we end up losing some good editors who have slower learning curves but mean well. Do the positives of this proposal really outweigh the negatives, and do the negatives of NOT having it outweigh the positives of NOT having it?Camelbinky (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ShopSquad: please move page back
Hi, I made some necessary improvements to the ShopSquad page at AZ123/ShopSquad. Can you please move it back to /Shopsquad? Thanks. Oamasood (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅-- SPhilbrick  T  11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Elliot Stone
Someone unregistered user removed the text from Elliot Stone. I undid it and placed a tag. reply at my talk page.--—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—AssassiN's Creed (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:King sodipodi
Hi,

Thanks for pointing this out, I normally notify users but I obviously overlooked it this time. I've notified the user Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 16:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding It doesn't appear that the block is warranted. The thread is Block of User:Since 10.28.2010.The discussion is about the topic User:Since 10.28.2010. Thank you. — Mlpearc  powwow  17:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Sir, Thank you for your message, Im sorry I wasnt available to answer earlier. I assure you its quite ok, I understand that we are all working together here to improve articles and do the best possible job we can and I value your comments and guidance. Very sincerely Khani100 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My Page
Hello Sphilbrick, I know that new info is to be placed on the bottom already; the reason I have placed the help template at the top of my page, was because I read an article on Wikipedia that if you are requesting for help, you place the template at the top of your talk page. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's news to me, let me check that out.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but the advice is wrong. I did a quick search but haven't found a page saying that. If you run across it again, could you let me know so I can correct it? BTW, I'm sorry to see that you haven't received any help on your request. I'll be out of town for a couple days, but if you don't have any answers by Friday, shoot me a note, and I'll see if I can track down someone.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will be sure to let you know what page I had came across, if I ever come across it again, because obviously it was an error. And yes, that's fine you will be out of town for a few days.. no worries it is summer after all :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

sign
I would just like to drop a friendly line that I have changed my username. I believe that you were requesting that I change my username at the Help Desk. Thank you.  An  editor since 10.28.2010.  02:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. My main concern was the appearance,the signature, but it looks better now. -- SPhilbrick  T  12:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo
FYI, Ghostofnemo has returned to push his a) a section on WT7 controlled demolition and b) a 9/11 truther petition to our 9/11 Conspiracy theories article. Not sure what admin action is appropriate at this point. But in the case of the petition, he's still exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior by asking why his addition was reverted when he should know why: he was one of the main participants in the previous discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I had tried to interact with the editor, but wasn't having much success, then the conversation died. I'll check it out.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Maya Moore 2009.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Maya Moore 2009.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted article request
Hi, I noticed you deleted dab page New Era Building with edit summary: 21:27, 1 June 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "New Era Building" ‎ (G6: Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page)

I re-created the article, as it is a needed dab, distinguishing between at least 2 notable topics. I suspect you are not aware that a dab page needs to distinguish between valid topics, while the topics need not yet have articles. There's policy/practice about valid dab page entries at MOS:DABRL. If you care to dispute the existence of this page, either or both of these articles can easily be created as stubs (bothering some people who don't like the short stubs). But, the dab page is needed to establish what names the new/future articles should take. There were longish discussions at Wikiproject Disambiguation, establishing that dab pages can consist of all redlinks, which could be dug up.

Anyhow, could you please provide a copy of the deleted article to me and/or copyedit all of its contents into the newly re-created article? I have restored the NRHP items, but i see an incoming link from Constellation Records discography oddly enough, not sure what else was there. The NRHP items do not yet fully conform to MOSDAB policy yet either; perhaps the deleted version ones which you could restore did fully conform. If not, i'll further fix them up. -- do ncr  am  22:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You said:

I suspect you are not aware that a dab page needs to distinguish between valid topics, while the topics need not yet have articles.
 * Your suspicion is wrong. I deleted it, not because it contained redlinks, but because the usual practice with two entries in a dab is to use hatnotes. However, hatnotes won't work very well with redlnks.
 * Had you not recreated it, I could have restored it. I do not know how to retore a delted page when there is a new article at that title. I've copied the text from the most recent version below:

*New Era Building (Maquoketa, Iowa), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Jackson County, Iowa
 * New Era Building (Lancaster, Pennsylvania), listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Lancaster, Pennsylvania

New Era Building

A dab page of two entries is fine, even if the two articles have hatnotes. I bet these 2 places are completely unrelated, and hatnotes would just be a bit irritating. No hatnote and a dab page is better even if the 2 articles exist, imho.

Okay, thanks, will copy that in. -- do ncr  am  23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are now 3 entries on the dab page, so hatnoting as an alternative is less attractive. Another editor has taken edit-warring stance against the disambiguation.  Could you please move User:Doncram/New Era Building to New Era Building.  Or comment at wp:AN. -- do  ncr  am  14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)