User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 31

Block logs discussion
Hi there! We spoke briefly on the subject of cleaning-up block logs to remove obviously-bad blocks a little while ago. You might be interested in joining in this discussion. Pesky (talk ) 08:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I saw a similar discussion at VP Policy I believe. Will check it out, although I have some other tasks to accomplish first.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two discussions are kinda intertwined, but approach the issue from slightly different paradigms. Pesky  (talk ) 10:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
I call to your attention an RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I'm sorry, I think I failed to invite all interested parties to the discussion when I filed the RfC. If you notice any other potentially-interested editor that I also failed to invite I encourage you to do so. Deicas (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How sad that we are actually spending time on this. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated reply
Hi there, sorry I forgot to get back to you sooner. I left a note on my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Similar concerns...
Regarding this, I have similar concerns. On the one hand I appreciate the effort to keep the many DRN subthreads logically grouped, on the other hand as an active disputant that is not at all his role. I ended up just make the requested heading change to my comment in the DRN case because I figured it was just easier to do it then get involved in an annoying side meta-argument, but I'd prefer the organization and the prompting regarding the path of the discussion be left to the DRN folks, that's what the whole benefit of DRN is supposed to be. And the whole thing is starting to feel very WP:SOUPy. 21:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I agree. Almost at the same time you were posting here, I was posting here -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI...
You may want to be aware of this... 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaim Koppelman
Thank you for processing the OTRS permissions on the images to be used in the Chaim Koppelman entry. Trouver did most of the heavy-lifting, I helped out with the copyright issues. I think it's about ready to be moved to the mainspace! Thanks again for your help. LoreMariano (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this
Thanks for this, it absolutely nails the exact issue I have with the perspective of that DRN discussion. I've been about ready to drop it but as I mentioned there I'm very concerned about the possible negative unintended consequences regarding contentious BLP material that the process as explained has. I'd be prepared to discuss that in another venue if there were interest in starting such a discussion. 17:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ...actually I don't understand why you wrote "It is my belief that the supports had better arguments, but of course, I may be biased on that point" when you !voted "Oppose inclusion in Paul Krugman"?   17:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

the editor who adds my comments to a discussion is me
I see you've accused another editor of inappropriate WP:Canvassing. May I point out that I was already following the discussion on the DRN, as evidenced by my prior participation? What I find remarkable here is that you characterize my challenge to your contention that the normally "serious" Krugman was just engaging in "partisan rantings" when it came to the coin as illegitimate speculation about your "motivations", yet you then nonchalantly assign my motive for getting involved in the DRN discussion at all to being canvassed by a third party, never mind the obvious contrary evidence in the form of my already being involved on that very page. You "note" that if what I had to say were thrown out on the grounds that it had been solicited by another editor there would be, in your view, a consensus for exclusion. You can go ahead and claim that I speculated about your motives, but I never suggested that there was anything morally questionable about them, the issue was rather that this "he's not really serious" rationale of yours (a rationale you spun as your "motive" and therefore not to be questioned) was at odds with the facts of the particular content issue, with exhibit A being Krugman criticizing Jon Stewart for not treating the coin as a serious proposal. The same cannot be said here, as you are attempting to delegitimize my Wikipedia contributions by implying that they are the product of a third party's misconduct. For someone who's declared "personal hope" is to see something about the coin included, you don't seem to have many reservations about what you're prepared to do to prevent that personal hope of yours from being realized. If you are going to invalidate my "vote", I suggest you detail just how the quality of that vote was compromised by the third party's action (which was not necessarily misconduct anyway since notifying other editors of ongoing discussions may be benign).--Brian Dell (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not. I thought about specifically saying I was not using the word canvassing, but I thought it would be odd to use the word as part of an explanation that I wasn't using the word, so I didn't want to take that path. I did not accuse you of contributing improperly. I didn't even accuse Deicas of anything other than not knowing how such processes work, which is very much in evidence.
 * I saw Deices ask you to contribute, and shortly thereafter, you cast an !vote. I missed that you had contributed earlier. Had you simply pointed that out, I would have been happy to strike my point. It is moot now, as the DRN is closed.
 * However, I do take exception to your claim:


 * You "note" that if what I had to say were thrown out on the grounds that it had been solicited by another editor there would be, in your view, a consensus for exclusion.
 * I said no such thing. I asked the DRN volunteer if they would see it differently. If not, there's no need to pursue anything. If it would change things, then it is worth determining whether you view would have been added without the solicitation.
 * I do think there was a consensus for exclusion, but I thought that even considering your addition to the discussion.
 * However, this is all minor quibbling, unless you thought I was accusing you of anything inappropriate, which I haven't done. The main issue is what to do next, as it isn't even settled whether the material belongs in or out.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "I saw Deices ask you to contribute, and shortly thereafter, you cast an vote" and you then decided that there was a causal relationship because you consider yourself a master psychologist who can determine why I do what I do without looking for anything else I might have done that might suggest an alternative cause? I really have no objection to this speculation about my motivations, especially since you haven't insinuated that those motivations are devious or shady, it's rather the hypocrisy of your doing this after having previously lectured me in a context that was far closer than this to taking issue with what an editor said (I quoted your use of "serious" at the time and admitted that I was "reading between the lines" of what you said) as opposed to why he said it.
 * re " I did not" and "I said no such thing", I see this again and again on Wikipedia: someone insinuates something, and then when called on it they deny that there was any such insinuation. You can't come up with "5 to 2" without excluding me, and you can't exclude me without alleging that there there was something wrong with what another editor said to me to me on my Talk page.  This sort of evasion is the most exhausting aspect of Wikipedia.  Do you think problem editors just amicably nod when the error of their ways is pointed out to them?  No, particularly when the dispute is extended and involves multiple editors, it's "yeah, well, that's not my position/argument or what I did" and left unsaid is "even if you're right that there's a problem with that position/argument or action."  You say "I asked the DRN volunteer if they would see it differently" while pretending that the difference is something other than the discussion with my input suppressed.  You then characterize my protest that I've as much right to express myself on Wikipedia as you do as "minor quibbling."
 * The context here is that a volunteer made a decision that resulted in rejecting Marek's reversion of Deicas (the first shot in the edit war) and you refused to abide by that decision, instead asking ever so gently and indirectly to consider the possibility that I'm an ineligible "voter", a decidedly ungentle allegation. Evidently, you continue to refuse to cooperate with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes by insisting that the matter still isn't "settled."  If you are not prepared to accept the verdict may I suggest that you and Marek stop badgering the volunteer so that those other members of the community who are prepared to accept dispute resolution decisions, whether favourable to themselves or not, can enjoy the attention of these volunteers?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Geez lighten up. Read your own post   you then decided that there was a causal relationship because you consider yourself a master psychologist  Seriously? Give it 48 hours, and see if you think your tone is appropriate. Until then, the DRN is closed as failed, and some of us are working on a way forward. You are free to contribute, or not.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how about ceasing to manipulate what I say, in this case converting a question of mine to a statement? I appreciate your current concession that I am, in fact, free to contribute.  I'm sorry that you felt compelled to suggest otherwise to the volunteer, based purely on what you believed caused me to contribute.  The first step on the way forward is recognition of and respect for the volunteer's conclusion.  I should clarify that I have more reservations about the company you keep ("some of us") than with the vast majority of what you've said, which added to and advanced the issue and was always more measured in both temperament and tone than the vast majority of my own expression.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Krugman, edit warring and BRD
The original Bold edit to add the material was followed by a revert that was followed by a discussion. That is BRD. Once the material was re-added that was an edit war. If editors were to have objected at that time then, per policy, the last bold edit would have been the one to add it back. Editors didn't object, Marek simply continued the edit war, again removing the content. That was indeed the last bold edit in the edit war.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is a bunch of wiki-lawyering baloney. Volunteer Marek 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What's "baloney" is spinning Deicas' addition of material as the first shot in the edit war instead of your reversion. Deleting another editor's work has a "warring" element that adding material to Wikipedia does not.  Deicas also showed an interest in discussion, saying that Krugman "describes the coin issuance as part of 'most important fiscal policy debate of our lifetimes'" and later taking the initiative to kick off the Talk page section on the coin while you just repeated your insistence that the coin is a "joke" without supporting evidence.  Did you make an effort to meet in the middle by adding a caveat, qualifier, or other context?   The default goes to Deicas primarily because Deicas initiated the effort to pursue an alternative to just digging in and doing the same thing with respect to you.  I might add that a general default to keep would reflect the reality that it's the deletionists who are more inclined to edit war, since they start from a point whereby they are less reluctant to destroy another person's contribution.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm simply stunned at this conclusion. However, given the failure, I guess it is moot, so I won't pursue it.


 * I'm extremely disappointed in my ability to articulate my position. I thought it was quite obvious that discussion on Krugman's comments belong on Wikipedia, though not yet on his biography. I thought I provided arguments, including apt analogies to show why this is the case. I thought the argument for inclusion were cogent arguments for inclusion of the subject matter  on the relevant article, but none made a persuasive case that the incident  rose to the level of importance that  justified inclusion on his bio. While more than one person indicated that my arguments were spot-on, you didn't see it that way. I'll have to work harder.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

please check...
Something terrible happened to "my" Pullman porter article! I reverted your edit but maybe you should take a look at it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have no idea what happened. I used dabsolver to fix the reference to Willie Brown. It seemed to have made a number of unexplainable other changes at the same time, if all those changes happened when I simply replaced Willie Brown  with Willie Brown (politician)| Willie Brown. I guess I'vd better check some of the other edits I made at the same time.


 * I redid the Willie Brown edit.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In case you care, here's a similar edit (using dabsolver) I did about 45 minutes later. Looks fine. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  00:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Permission was approved by the US government (please start)
Hello,

About: List of songs recorded by the Beatles.

Permission was approved by the US government:


 * 1) http://connect.state.gov/profiles/blogs/the-beatles-music-for-scientific-research-small-gift-for (approved original);


 * 2) http://beatles-education-radio.narod2.ru/FW.html - the earliest copy contains text (moderation: This post is awaiting approval)

Please start the process via OTRS. Thank you! - 176.15.199.106 (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC).
 * You state that the US government has approved, but you don't have a link to the approval. I need to see the approval, and even then, there will be more questions, as the US Government is not the copyright holder.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In accordance with the US legislation: info with scientific value provides right for FREE FLOW of such content (can compare with works of the governnment - public domain). Music of The Beatles - is subject of researh in many sciences. Copyright holder in such cases is not subject of attention. And you saw page with: This post is awaiting approval. Better of any signature. Soon I will give you more of info. - 78.106.185.61 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Please be normal man without insults. And I ask remove insult from this topic. I will give you big number of legal acts soon (not only acts). Respecting in Internet: insults - bad thing. You must respect me, because USA approved this document: http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/07/05/internet-resolution (only 5 countries and USA including). Insult in material world = insult in Internet - main sense. Please, restore my topic. When you have respect of the national policy in the US (state policy on the human rights issues). Need remove collapse bottom. - 78.106.185.61 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

I am not insulting you, but you keep claiming something is approved, when it is not. The US government does not own the copyright, and has no authority to make the music available. Nothing you have linked suggests otherwise. Until and unless you can provide an agreement from a copyright holder, I request that you not post here again, this is a waste of my time.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Insult - "nonsense" (in Russia - very bad word). Is it also waste of your time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access ? Honestly, and with understanding, that other legal grounds exist .. Please say me. - 78.106.185.61 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Thank you for changing of text! But what about my text - above (my question in red colour)? - 78.106.185.61 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Hello. I ask you say me: Can be used info of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society (to find needed consent)? Which other licenses of the CC can be used also? Thanks! - 78.106.30.106 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Because I try not for self, I want get replies from you on my questions (I try for phantastic number of people and you also - when you will interact via dialogue). - 176.15.199.220 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Please see new legal information on the website with materials. And please remove Collapse bottom. - 176.15.199.220 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC).


 * I made already the such useful action. - 176.15.199.220 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Sorry, I've spent too much time on this. I will take no action unless I see an email from someone who holds the copyright. That isn't you. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Youtube has the permission from EMI (and EMI - main holder: Apple Corps LTD uses license from EMI). Attribution of Youtube = such action in relation of EMI (and everyone knows this fact). Other legal ground in great number (struggle with all this is bad thing). And learn this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Summit_on_the_Information_Society ! - 2.94.228.242 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Hello. I ask you very much to turn on the process. Password I can give you in any moment (you can say: give me password directly now). And this will become reality in one moment. Changing of the password (and control question) means: access to editing will lost forever for old owners of the website (for us). Thanks! - 78.106.30.8 (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC).


 * On this stage - very constructive dialogue must be. Aim is almost reached ( as never earlier ). I ask you ban actions of vandals, which is against of creative work of The Beatles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_recorded_by_the_Beatles (illegal action of vandal - damage). Against Knowledge in Wikipedia on legal grounds, and against simple people. Because it is your personal page (not his page) - please explain for vandal: they must stop them black job in Wikipedia (nobody seeks personal benefit - the more so). Forbid him blocking of IP addresses (threat for constructive dialogue in favor of millions of people) . P.S. Because user makes black job very often (against articles about the songs of The Beatles - I learned this issue now) - I am almost sure: he is agent of some company, and wants get the profit (he needs to be banned: lobby and advertising - are black aims). Thanks! - 2.94.228.231 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Hello! Can you help me? - 95.29.184.131 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Template:PD-US-unpublished
... is now a blue link on this wiki. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I suspect it will have many uses.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote""
FYI: the item below are some question I just left at User talk:NE Ent:

Aside: sorry, at the moment I'm having a problem with getting URLs to closed AN/I cases to work right, so the citations, below, aren't as clean as they should be.

With regard to the recent closure of AN/I "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote": do I read the closure block correctly and you were the administrator who closed the case? I have questions about the closure reason.

1) Would you please have a look at a new AN/I: "Strange closure of AN/I item "No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote"""

2) Therein would you please search on the text: "confused as to why the AN/I complaint was closed with a disposition of: "Content discussion."? I explain there my confusion.

3) Would you then search on the text: "the dispute was closed is because you [Deicas] have not indicated"? A this location there is more discription of confusion about the closure reason?

Can you case some light on what is going on? I'm confused.

Thank you. Deicas (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that admins do not resolve debates about content, at least, not the role as admins. Admins have some authority to deal with conduct issues, when editors are not playing nicely. AN/I is a location to ask for admin intervention, but as admins deal with conduct, not content, there is no point in requesting admin intervention if your chief complaint is about content. SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heading to a meeting for a few hours, will respond more later.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted a quick response this morning, while waiting to meet a colleague, without having read the responses at the ANI thread. I see they are sending the same message. I understand that you feel the issues are conduct not content, but your view of what constitutes unacceptable conduct is not one shared by others. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aside: I'm sorry that the links to the referenced AN/I are clumsy -- I'd having troubles getting permanent links to specific ANI/Is to work correctly.

I call your attention to the closure of AN/I [No rational argumentation at Talk:Paul Krugman "Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote] It was closed with a status of "NO ACTION: Content discussion, not appropriate for this forum". That closure reason makes *no* sense to me as I had specifically asserted "This discussion ... is in regard to *conduct* not *content*"AN/I.  Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to as the question?

In the course of the AN/I discussion I asked the question: I request that this AN/I be escalated to a higher level in the dispute resolution process. If this isn't the correct place to make the escalation request, then would you please point me to the correct location?AN/I ] Can you cast any light on this matter or to point me to an editor/admin/forum in which to ask the question?

I call to your attention your comment on my talk page ...

Just so there is no confusion, my request to shut down the AN/I thread was not intended to cut you off. I saw you note that you would need several hours to prepare something, but as AN/I is for requests for admin intervention related to user conduct, and you weren't looking for admin help, I didn't want you to waste your time.

Do I understand correctly that, per above, you made the decision to "to shut down the AN/I thread"?

Per my comment above on "conduct": would you please explain your reasoning for making the assessment that "...you [Deicas] weren't looking for admin help"?

Per your statement: "I do wish someone had responded to one of your later questions where you asked how to proceed, because that is a fair question" -- asd you have some familarity with Wikipedia administration perhaps you might provide some assistance in helping me answer that question?

Thank you Deicas (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked, Do I understand correctly that, per above, you made the decision to "to shut down the AN/I thread"?


 * In a word, no. In this thread, I offered the opinion that it was time to shut it down, because you were not asking for any action which an admin could take, and being relatively new, might think it was the appropriate venue to ask for action. I specifically noted that I was involved, so I felt I should not close it. The normal process, when someone decides to close a thread, is to add a comment in the upper right corner. As you can see NE Ent, who closes many threads, made the decision to close the thread.


 * You followed that up with another request. While you think you are asking for intervention on conduct issues, what you are asking for is not the type of things admins have authority to do, so while you think it is a conduct request to ask editors to argue rationally, it is viewed as a content issue, one in which you disagree with the content suggestions of other editors. In this case, Jayron32 a highly experienced, highly respected admin with over six years of experience and over 50,000 edits made the decision to close the thread.


 * As for how to proceed, you've tried the article talk page, which I think is going OK, although you see it differently. You've tried DRN which failed miserably. Another option is Third opinion. I haven't used it, so I offer no opinion on its efficacy, but it is an option. A somewhat more formal option is Requests for mediation. That often false to get off the ground, as it requires the participants to agree to the process, which often fails. That might not be the problem in this case. You've expressed that the more general problem is POV. I'm not convinced, but the venue to pursue that is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Another option is an RfC, although those usually fail miserably when not tightly defined, and I see that as an issue. It might work if narrowly tailored to either the Becker quote or the TDC issue, but not likely to work if you want to pursue a more general POV problem.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  03:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:Lindsey eden/sandbox
She has recreated the article in mainspace at L . Eden. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleted, thanks for the notice.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks..I think hoax is probably a better description due to the impossible timeline, but there were accusations of criminal behavior without reference, so it had to go! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly - allegation of criminal activity without a reference is what triggered it for me.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Query
Hi Sphilbrick, I was wondering if you could advise me on something? I was poking around and looking at the Lancope article, which as you know is currently tagged as a copyvio. Curious, I took a look at the logs at Copyright_problems, which seem to show that the copyvios came from religious sites, but I couldn't find any reference of those sites in the article. Perhaps a template has been misplaced, I'm not sure. In any case, could you please advise on what might be needed for the article to be made live again? My own work tends to be in other parts of the project, so any advice would be appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 20:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking into it now.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this site? If so, your eyes are playing tricks on you. That is the purported source for Apollo Quiboloy, which is one line down from Lancope. Some confusion occurs, because that entry was placed incorrectly, I tried to fix it but failed.


 * The purported source of the Lancope material is this page-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh. Thanks, that explains it. Because the other entries were indented underneath Lancope, I thought they were related, but they were actually different entries, I see that now. Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, then to fix this, I should rewrite the article at Talk:Lancope/Temp, and then post about it on the W:CP page? Or just rewrite and restore? --Elonka 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have procrastinated. I just wrote a long post about the problems on the page, but in short, yes, rewrite and restore would be wonderful.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, the editor adding it to the list added above the line that says add below this line. That mangled the indent. I'm sure it can be fixed, but my simple try failed, so rather than mess it up more, I'll let it go. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the option to write at the temp subpage is mainly for the original editor; given that there had been a problem, we'd prefer that someone else take a look at the revision before replacing it, so the temp subpage is a good holding area. There are no such concerns with you, so go ahead, rewrite and restore, pop me a note, and I'll close the entry.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks again for the mentoring! I've rewritten the article quite a bit, though when I ran another Duplication report on it, there are still several word pairs being identified. Some of them are product names, so I'm honestly not sure how to avoid that kind of flag. Could you please take a look and let me know if you think that this is enough, or whether more editing is needed, before I copy it back into article space? Thanks, --Elonka 21:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The main text looks fine. I know the duplication detector picks up a few things, but some product names are individual matches. I normally set the hurdle at 4, and only two phrases meet that, neither look to be a problem. That said, I do not like the series of external links called references. None are properly formed as references, if used to support the main text they should be converted to proper refs. Some may be fine as external links, but it looks a bit spammy as is. I'm in the middle of something, so can't comment in more detail, but will come back with more specific advice later.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  22:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in 100% agreement about the links. I fixed a couple, and was going to work on more, but I figured it was better to get the copyvio fixed first, and then worry about the rest of the article. I'll go ahead and get the article restored, thanks again for the help! --Elonka 05:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, excellent. Looks great, I added the closing template to the Copyright problems page (and fixed the indent). Thanks for your help.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

2012082010008257
There are some questions about this ticket at. If you can stop by it would be appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded there.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS mentoring request
Hi, sorry if this is a bit bold, and don't hesitate to let me know if you don't have the time for it. My day job involves processing tickets in a customer service environment, and I love it, so I am obviously interested in pitching in and helping with OTRS whenever I can. As recommended, I am asking for guidance from an experienced OTRS volunteer, and hopefully you'll be able to help. :)  Salvidrim!    &#9993;  07:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested, but in all day training tomorrow. Will respond more fully on Thursday I hope, although Thursday I'll be doing some catch-up, so I might be Friday. great to hear, we can use you.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I have the most time over the weekend anyhow. :)  Salvidrim!    &#9993;  23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Chaim Koppelman entry
Hi, I thought you would like to know that the entry for Chaim Koppelman was moved last night to the mainspace.

I will be working with Dorothy Koppelman to upload 4 more works on Napoleon and will assist in duplicating the process we followed last time, i.e., sending the Declaration of Consent form for those works to OTRS. Thanks again for your help. LoreMariano (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I'm a little tied up for a couple days, but if the OTRS ticket doesn't get promptly cleared, drop me a note, and I'll look into it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
15:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  C 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks for the pie!-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)