User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 21

New Issues Since "False Usernames" Question
Almost 2 years ago you answered my question about the use of false usernames. You were very helpful. Thank you.

It would appear that something similar is happening again. First, a new Wikipedia account by the name Ucfgrad was recently created. It would appear that this account was created for the sole purpose of editing one page, the Harmony, Florida page. I am guessing that Ucfgrad also created the account to avoid scrutiny of his IP address and therefore his association with the developer of Harmony.

I posted a few questions last month to Ucfgrad's talk page. I have yet to receive a response.

The term "Ucfgrad" implies a possible affiliation with the University of Central Florida. Is this in accord with Wikipedia policy? Or should a username represent an individual without identifying an affiliation with some organization?

Ucfgrad moved a link to position # 8 that was originally appended as item # 3 to the list of external links on the Harmony, Florida page in 2008. Is this in accord with Wikipedia policy? Can anyone insert whatever they like above long standing external links?

As I alluded to above, I suspect that Ucfgrad is actually a paid agent of the commercial entity that markets the development of Harmony. I can't prove it. But that would be consistent with the developer's desire to have alternative points-of-view about Harmony pushed as far out of view as possible without also appearing to completely suppress the truth.

Since the original link was added almost 4 years before Ucfgrad's changes, should I be able to avoid an edit war with Ucfgrad after moving the link back to its original position? Also, Ucfgrad added a new link to a Yahoo group that requires a Yahoo account to access. Should that be removed?

--George Schiro 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeSchiro (talk • contribs)
 * There are others more on top of username policy than I, but I'll answer before checking the edits, and then possibly modify my answer if necessary. It is problematic if an editor has a username and is editing pages associated with that name, but it is not necessarily a problem if they are editing other pages. It is understandable that a graduate of a school might want a user name reflecting the association. This is not a problem if one stays away from school related edits. So if User:Ucfgrad edits University of Central Florida articles, we probably have a problem.


 * I'd prefer to avoid phrasing such as "created the account to avoid scrutiny of his IP address...". We encourage people to create accounts, and should not assume such an action is problematic by itself.


 * The editor has only three edits. It is a bit too early to assume that the account was created solely to edit one page.


 * In other words, let's start with Wp:AGF.


 * That said, I'll now take a look at the edits, see if I see problems, and whatever I conclude, I'll try to keep a watch on the editor.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh, now that I've looked, the page looks like an advertising brochure. However, UCfGrad may only be part of the problem as a recent IP added a lot of material. As for the links, I'll have to peruse the guideline WP:EL. I haven't what it has to say, if anything about order. Without actually looking at it, my expectation is that the first link should be an official link,then the rest, which meet the guideline, should be in alpha order, or some other logical order. Some cleanup is needed. I'll start with a cleanup tag, then look at it a bit. May not get too much done now, as two big basketball games are about to start.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks SPhilbrick. "Advertising brochure" is what it is (mostly) since I have no doubt that this page was originally created by Harmony Development Company, the owners of the so-called Official site. I went ahead and corrected the external link name of concern in case alpha order is decided in favor of chronological order. Please don't forget to look at the use of Harmony Residents Group as an external link. I am pretty sure it's not within WP:EL guidelines either.--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your help SPhilbrick. You look very busy. If you are too busy to handle this any further, I understand. When you get a chance, please suggest who else might be available to handle this issue.--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten, although I understand it may look that way. I have been busy; I did start to look at it yesterday, but got interrupted. My plan is to remove some of the EL (as a start), but I want to refresh my memory of the guidelines, so I make sure my removal is on firm ground. I may get to it this evening, but more likely, tomorrow. (Reminders work, if I haven't taken any action by the weekend, please nudge me again.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentle nudge :o)--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it in about an hour.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Addressed, we'll see what happens.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa Nelly! You were on the right track, but I think you also threw out the baby with the bath water. The "official site" is pure advertising owned by the developer of Harmony (Starwood). The "commons" site offers the only alternative point-of-view about Harmony via its related newsgroup that is not controlled by the developer. It has almost 1500 articles dating back to 2006. These articles include investigations of the developer, Harmony's ongoing health issues with water and its fire station that was almost closed last year. It also has exposés on irregularities with the Harmony CDD board, the Osceola School Board and the National Honor Society. Can you please add that one back as the third link? (where it originally was back in 2008) Thanks again for your attention to this SPhilbrick.--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On the first, I saw "official" and may have accepted it without thinking. Maybe I missed something at Commons, I poked around and saw nothing. Feel free to add it back.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks!--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Sphilbrick,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U
In a way, of course, that RfC/U was a stunning success; most of them take too long to reach a muddled conclusion, and drive the subject off the project in the process. (I promised myself I'd avoid ranting about RfC/Us on the PD talk page, so I hope you don't mind me doing a little of it here.) 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. To quote myself (from real life, not WP) everything is relative. Compared to some other RFC/U's, this might actually be a model to emulate.
 * I do confess that my initial reaction upon seeing the MF comment was "ouch". But that was before I saw the context. An RFA candidate is actually asking for the bit so candidate can " keep order amongst Wikipedians… primarily us[ing] bans…" Are you kidding me? I realize this is in 2008, and maybe I'm jaded by the literally hundreds of RFA questions, " do you know the difference between a ban and a block " but I can imagine MF erupting at that response. In context, his response was extremely measured. If he had thrown a hissy fit, I'd defend it. Instead, he makes a subtle, clever response. Would I be happier if he was even more measured "Um, do you really think that a desire to invoke bans (a tool not even available to admins) and blocks to maintain order is really consistent with having a good heart?" No, his response was sharper than my response, in more than one sense of the word.
 * So my point was that the right length of time for the RFC/U would be about 30 seconds; although I do understand that the heels her grind exceedingly slow at times.
 * As an aside, did you remember that the editor who brought the complain later said, in a failed RFA bid} " For example, several months ago and before my previous RFA, I was in a conflict with another editor whose behavior I considered to be uncivil. I confronted that editor and asked them to maintain civility, but it appeared to me that the user would not comply. It escalated to the point where I filed an RFC against this user, which generated a lot of unnecessary drama. I've since learned that drama is to be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary to escalate matters. I caused a lot more damage by inflaming the situation than the editor's (alleged) incivility did. " --[[User:Sphilbrick| SPhilbrick] (Talk) 19:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I had not read that RfA before. The statement you highlight seems to be a common refrain among people who in good faith want to "fix" someone's perceived or actual incivility. Incidentally, after noticing who closed that RfA, I'm reminded of a comment about RFC/Us I left yesterday but removed later as moot. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * When I file my RfA, it's going to look a little something like this:


 * 1. Why do you want to become an admin?
 * A: To punish my enemies.


 * 2. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Blocks and topic bans, mostly.


 * That's all I have so far. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @AQFK You might not get an actual support from MF, but I bet he'd thank-you for being honest
 * @28bytes I started reading the Fae RFC/U, but couldn't continue, I guess that is sympathy that they can be counter-productive. As for Rlevse/PumpkinSky, I'm very conflicted on the merits, and won't go into it further now, but as an aside, I still think of myself as a relative newbie, but I was brought up short when I saw someone commenting that they didn't even know who Rlevse was. Huh? Wasn't that just yesterday that he left, or the day before…? No, I guess not, but it still seems like recent history to me. :)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the things I told PS prior to his return request was to keep in mind that the "community" is a very fluid thing, and that there would be a fair number of people who weren't editing in 2010 who'd be willing to keep an open mind about a return. Obviously I overestimated the impact that would have. :/ 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @SPhilbrick: You do realize I am joking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. I contemplated adding an item to my to-do list to never vote for you in an RfA, because if your candidate statement didn't match the above,then it proves you are can't keep your story straight and are therefore ineligible, or if it does match the above, then you are ineligible, but I worried someone might not get the joke, so I won't. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 2013 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Columbus, Trenton, Newark, College Park, Washington, St. John's University, Storrs and Comcast Center ✅

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thanks. I did one more, but they are getting harder. Heh, just realized I did an article about sapphires - I wonder if that was just coincidence?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, with the better picture! - As for coincidence, please ask the author, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clever, I got that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He can answer on his talk, see another great pic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That CCI is over, you can take it off your to-do list! Thanks! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work you did encouraging involvement.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Salting 10+4
Noticed that you just deleted 10+4. Do you mind salting the page due to repeated recreation by the author? Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never salted a page, but it looks warranted, so I'll figure out how.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I did it, but I didn't get any sort of feedback, so I'm not sure.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that did it. Thanks again. Singularity42 (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request
Hi Spilbrick, You recently delete the following page Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sachi Foundation" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/sachifoundation?sk=info) at time map 01:53, 17 February 2012. Kindly undelete the page as I did forwarded both required emails (My copyright request consent submission letter and Sachi Foundation Adminsitration copyright Permission reply to Wikipedia on the same day as required. Thank You. infocatt {talk}
 * Sorry, I missed this as it was not at the bottom of my page; I'm in a meeting will address as soon as the meeting is over.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded at your talk page to explain why I did not restore the article.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Heartland proposals
I suggest you sign your text in the various sub-sections to avoid confusion when others add their comments below. I have put your sig at the end of your text in the two cases where I moved my comment or we'd have had confusion straight off. Babakathy (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good Point-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you for help? To link articles indirectly.
Hello Sphilbrick!

As you have been very helpful before, I thought I could ask you for help with one question. I recently linked the newly created article Ingeborg of Sweden (1263–1292) to the article of her father, Valdemar, King of Sweden. As you can see, she and her siblings are listed in a row. Their names, however, are written differently: while Ingeborg are linked as Ingeborg of Sweden (1263–1292), her siblings names are written as Marina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden. As the names are written differently, it makes the whole article looks bad, somewhat sloppy and therefore less serious. Because of this, I chose to link Ingeborg indirectly as Ingeborg Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, to correct this problem. My opinion was simply to format the article to look better, more organized and thereby more serious.

Is it allowed to link the article this way and for these reasons? Would it in fact be something positive? As you can see from the article's edit history, my formating was opposed by a user who seem to think that this was negative and contradicting to the rules of Wikipedia.

Initially, I thought I should just leave the matter, as I do not wish to start any edit warring, and because I and this user have had some communication problems and a discussion would perhaps not be a good method either. But now, after seeing his last reply, I thought this might be a good opportunity for me to find out the rules about this. Would it be a god idea to format the names so they are all listed the same way? It it allowed to link articles indirectly when formatting an article? Would my solution be good in this case? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know off the top of my head, but will look into it. I have a few other things on my plate at the moment, so cannot do much right now, but I will try to look into this later in the day. Please bump me if I do not respond by tomorrow.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it a bit, not sure I have a great answer, will think on it some more; bug me if I don't respond by tomorrow and I'll share my thoughts at that time.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am "buging" you now at your request! Do you have an answer? --Aciram (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about it. I have one suggestion, which I don't know whether it will be acceptable. (I don't do much work with nobility, and my sense is people who do have a strong feeling about what is acceptable and what is not.) If I understand you correctly, you would like the Valdemar, King of Sweden article to list his children, using a naming convention that is parallel, in other words, using the Rikissa Valdemarsdotter name, rather than the Richeza of Sweden name, which may cause a casual reader to wonder why she is in the list.
 * The obvious solution is to pipe it. I'll try it, and see what happens.
 * If I misunderstood the issue, please let me know.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an edit, let me know if it works for you, and I left a note at User talk:SergeWoodzing. We'll see what happens.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I will clarify just in case. Well, the issue is: I think the artcle would look better, if all the names on the list is listed in the same form. It does not matter so much which form, as long as the names are written the same way, when it is possible. For example: to have all names listed as "First name Valdemarsdotter/Valdemarsson of Sweden", or "First Name of Sweden", would look much better than to list the names differently, with some names listed as "First name Valdemarsdotter/Valdemarsson of Sweden", other as "First Name of Sweden", and other as "First name of Sweden (birth year-death year)".

To write the list as this:


 * 1) Ingeborg of Sweden (1263–1292), countess of Holstein, spouse of Gerhard II, Count of Holstein-Plön.
 * 2) Erik Valdemarsson of Sweden (1272–1330)
 * 3) Marina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, spouse of Rudolf, Count of Diepholz
 * 4) Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Poland (died about 1292), spouse of Przemysł II of Poland
 * 5) Katarina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden (died 1283)
 * 6) Margareta Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, a nun.

...links all the names differently. To link the names as this, however:


 * 1) Ingeborg Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, countess of Holstein, spouse of Gerhard II, Count of Holstein-Plön.
 * 2) Erik Valdemarsson of Sweden (1272–1330)
 * 3) Marina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, spouse of Rudolf, Count of Diepholz
 * 4) Rikissa Valdemarsdotter of Sweden (died about 1292), spouse of Przemysł II of Poland
 * 5) Katarina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden (died 1283)
 * 6) Margareta Valdemarsdotter of Sweden, a nun.

...link all the names in much the same way. The article looks much better like this, I think? It looks more tidy and thereby more serious. As I said, I do not care how the names are linked - that is a matter for the experts - as long as they are linked the same way. Would it be alright to link them all the same way to make it look better? --Aciram (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion wasn't successful, and I'm sorry to tell you that I think Serge has a good point. I'd like to think there is still a way to attain parallelism, while retaining the English names, but I don't see how to do it at the moment. Unfortunately, I am swamped at the moment, with some other projects, and cannot spent the time ti would take to think though all the issues, so I'll have to punt at the moment. Please keep contributing, I know you had a rocky start, but it has gotten better. Maybe we'll come up with a better solution some time, but I don't see it right now. The problem, as I understand it, is that "Valdemarsdotter" is not an English name.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we do have a way of reaching an agreement, because it seem to me as though I have been misunderstood. Both Serge, as well as yourself, seem to think that I prefer the name form "Valdemarsdotter" to be included. Is this correct? That would make this an issue about which name version to use. This is a misunderstanding. You see, I do not care whether we keep the "Valdemarsdotter" here at all. That has never been a issue for me. This is not a question about which name version to use. I only care about linking the names the same way. That is two separate questions.

This version:


 * 1) Ingeborg of Sweden
 * 2) Erik of Sweden
 * 3) Marina of Sweden
 * 4) Rikissa of Sweden
 * 5) Katarina of Sweden
 * 6) Margareta of Sweden

...is therefore just as good in my eyes as this one:


 * 1) Ingeborg Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 2) Erik Valdemarsson of Sweden
 * 3) Marina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 4) Rikissa Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 5) Katarina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 6) Margareta Valdemarsdotter of Sweden

...while SergeWoodzing prefers this one, were all names are linked in different versions:


 * 1) Ingeborg of Sweden (1263–1292)
 * 2) Erik Valdemarsson of Sweden
 * 3) Marina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 4) Richeza of Sweden, Queen of Poland
 * 5) Katarina Valdemarsdotter of Sweden
 * 6) Margareta Valdemarsdotter of Sweden

Can you see what I mean? I do not care which name version one is chosen; whether "Valdemarsdotter" is kept at all is of no importance to me whatsoever. I only care about using the same name version for all names in the list, whatever that version is. I seem to have problems in phrasing what I mean, but I would not like to be misunderstood, so I hope I have made myself clearer. To make things clear once again: in Serge's opinion, I may have some sort of agenda regarding which name version to use. But this is a misunderstanding, because I have never cared about which name version is used. This is not the issue at all. The issue for me is simply to use the same name version for all in this list. Which name version that is, I leave for others to decide. I do hope I have managed to make myself more clear this way. --Aciram (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is alright that you don't answer. I regard the matter as resolved. I may have too much trouble to express myself in English to make my opinion clear, but I am grateful for your effort, though it was a misunderstanding. Thank you again! Best greetings--Aciram (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope to look at it again, but I am up to my eyeballs in several things I need to do today.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Central Operatic Society
Hi Sphilbrick. I have now amended the above article with rewritten text and the bot seems to like it now! Just thought I would let you know. Best regards Chris   Chrisjbanks (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Pol430 talk to me 14:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft Nether Expansion Mod
Hi Sphilbrick! Can you please send me the code for my Minecraft Nether Expansion Mod Wiki. I have not finished it but SOMEONE deleted it because they didn't like it. Vi3tB0yAA talk to me 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking, haven't found it yet.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored it to User:Vi3tB0yAA/Minecraft Nether Expansion Mod although it looks a mess, not sure what you are doing.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor Vandalism
Thank you again for all your help with 'New Issues Since "False Usernames" Question' Sphilbrick.

It looks like "anonymous" wants to start an edit war on the Harmony, Florida page.

Here is what "anonymous" left in place:

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by    Starwood Capital Group.

Here is what was in place before the "anonymous" edits:

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by    Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others promised by the original developer have either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by    Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an    open newsgroup.[4]

4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12.

Here is the "anonymous" rationale for the edit:

Out of date reference: A majority of items listed as    unfulfilled on the reference website are now in     Harmony.

As you can see, what was removed is actually part of Harmony's history.

It would appear that "anonymous" wants to revise the history of Harmony. It seems that the primary purpose of the edit was the removal of the reference to the newsgroup which has existed since 2006 and which is still very active.

The newsgroup now serves the civic purpose of connecting citizens to public officials in and around Harmony. But it also serves to document ongoing issues with the development and the developer.

It is not the first time. This is actually the third time that the paragraph referenced above has been tampered with. The initial occurrence was in 2010 when you helped with the Harmony, Florida page for the first time Sphilbrick.

Here is what another Wikipedia moderator (Phantomsteve) wrote about the 2010 changes:

RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material: No evidence that the cited website is all the work of one person - personal attack

Most recently (prior to the changes shown above), it can be proven (with IP addresses) that the President of Harmony Development Company (or someone using his computer) actually expunged all references critical of the developer from the Harmony, Florida page on December 7th of last year. You can see it in the Harmony, Florida page history. When discovered, this same person scrambled to undo the changes without realizing that everything was being logged by Wikipedia.

Would you agree that it would be appropriate at this point to add an entirely new section to the Harmony, Florida page titled "Controversies" and restore the removed content to the new section? Also, would it be acceptable to add references to the facts about Starwood / Harmony Development Company's apparent ongoing attempts to suppress these facts from Wikipedia? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm busy at the moment, but will try to look at it later today.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sphilbrick. Whenever you can.--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions, no, yes, and no.


 * I've seen no evidence that the issues rise to the level that they should be labeled "controversies" At a Minimum it would be necessary to find multiple reliable sources using that term. I haven't checked, but I doubt they exists. I agree the rationale for removing the prior sourced wording was incorrect. (I've restored the article to the version before the removal). If there is a reliable source discussing the subsequent addressing of issues, that can be added, but expunging history requires a more substantial reason. People attempt to whitewash Wikipedia all the time, so no it is not appropriate to add a discussion of such attempts, unless they are discussed in reliable sources and meet wp:weight guidelines.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you.--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

XStoryPlayer was deleted G12
Hello Sphilbrick,

You have deleted the XStoryPlayer wiki page because of a G12 (copyright infr. violation). The author of the wiki/XStoryPlayer page ([]) is also the owner of the material of the G12 violation. You may check the note on the website that is referenced, to verify: http://www.xmoonproductions.com/wiki.txt

I would like you to undelete the wiki page please,

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.110.129 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that notice is not sufficient. Please see Donating copyrighted materials


 * In short, you can either:
 * Put a proper licensing statement on the website, or
 * Send the notice to OTRS as described
 * We take copyright issues very seriously, which, unfortunately, means a little bit of bureaucracy to make sure we get it right. Hope you understand. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick,

I have put in an OTRS request using the template,

Can you undelete the XStoryPlayer page, so I can put an OTRS pending in the talk section? Or can a deleted page not be undeleted and should I create a new one myself? I am not sure how to proceed.

Waiting your reply,

Greetings Asimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimo912 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

--Asimo912 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will undelete it. I caution that there may be other issues, but I'll let you and others address them.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick,

Could you give me a heads up on what kind of other issues there may be? So I can takes actions to prevent them.

Greetings Asimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimo912 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. The main one is that is has no references to reliable sources, which is key to establishing Notability, a requirement for inclusion. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture
The picture you recently loaded on the Shalee Lehning is not her. I'm not sure who that it is, but it is clearly not her. Do a quick google image search, and you'll see what I mean Topgun530 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked and I think it is, but I confess, I am not great at matching pictures to faces. It certainly isn't Deb or Kamie, and it sure doesn't look like Kelly, and it has to be one of those four. I'll see if I can check Monday.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, maybe it is Danielle Zanotti. I'll check into it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete page George_Crayton,_Jr.
Hi,

You deleted the George_Crayton,_Jr. page for copyright infringement. There is no copyright infringement, permission is granted for use on Wikipedia. If needed I can post an official notice on the www.longhupai.com website.

Thanks, KungFuJosh KungFuJosh (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is needed. Please post the notice, let me know and I will undelete.


 * Please see Donating copyrighted materials to make sure the wording meets our requirements. (In particular, see Donating_copyrighted_materials)


 * Sorry for the bureaucracy, but we take copyright seriously, and do not want to infringe.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate that. Please let me know if the notice I posted is adequate. KungFuJosh (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at User_talk:KungFuJosh