User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 39

Texas A&M Aggies women's basketball
Hello, Sphilbrick. Texas A&M Aggies women's basketball was somehow deleted - I suppose it was a mistake. Please restore, thanks. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, not sure how that happened. I had just added a roster, but did not intend to delete it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

afc=
Have you ever declined a G13? I can't see any evidence of it--not in your contributions, not in your log. I obviously am prepared to check more than others are, but surely when you see an article for something which is almost certainly notable on the face of it, such as a journal in Science Citation Index, or someone who seems to have published a number of books from decent publishers, or an article written by the APA project, it's worth a further check?

I'm prepared in fact to do all the checking for these things myself, if deletions don;t go too fast to make it possible. bBut the bot is set to keep filling in the CSd as things are deleted, so if you delete without checking 200 a day, it just does 300 more, and this is more than I can handle. It is immensely harder to check after they've been deleted. I'm doing it for ones I spot, but I'm shaving to only spot check at this point (If I have time to check carefully save about 1:20 of your deletions--you can see which by checking your CSD log for one that are no longer red.

I've had to give up something which even someone not interested in rescuing articles would want to do--I've been trying to check if AfCs correspond to bad articles in mainspace. I've been getting about 1:10 of these, too, when I've had a chance to look.

At this point you are doing half or more of the AfCs, and the way you are doing it is making my work almost impossible. You certainly have the right to keep going as you are; the idea of going slowly enough to check did not get consensus and I must adjust to that. But perhaps a little moderation as a informal compromise with someone who feels otherwise?  DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/L. S. Ettre-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gus_Wilson's_Model_Garage -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation (This didn't survive, but I thought it was worth another look)

I've also identified a small handful of others that looked like decent articles. However, after checking, it turned out someone copied the article to mainspace, and abandoned the AfC draft. However, the main issue is process. As I understand it, all AfC drafts are being reviewed by editors, who provide suggestions for improvements when warranted, and file a CSD if there are copyvios, or it is nonsense, etc. If the article reaches a point that it is acceptable, then it is moved into mainspace. However, that process left about 65,000 articles in limbo - not good enough for a reviewer to accept and move into mainspace, not bad enough to warrant one of the other CSD categories. A decision was made (I did not participate, but concur), that if the article is not deemed ready, but no editor touches it for over six months, then it qualifies as CSD G13 . While any editor can improve any article at any time, in practice, there is a principle editor who started the AfC process, and has the most interest in pushing the process forward. When that editor gives up, it is highly likely that no further improvement will take place. However, for anyone interested in rescuing potentially acceptable articles, they can step in and improve the article at any time. If nothing happens for six months, it can be deleted. I don't know the exact process of the bot to identify candidates for deletion, but I do notice that the ones in the queue generally have been unedited for more than 18 months.

When an article is in the CSD queue, it is my responsibility to ensure that it is tagged properly. The article notice prominently carries the elapsed time. I've reviewed the bot code to ensure that it is selecting the right ones, and I spot check some to make sure the dates of edits are accurate. Narrowly, my responsibility stops there. Some admins feel that no further checks are needed. The articles have all been reviewed by editors, and found not to meet our retention guidelines. If it should be the responsibility of the deleting admin to make yet another check to see if the article can be salvaged, then there is literally no point to having the CSD G13 category. Might as well nominate them for deletion, and go through the standard review. However, despite the fact that all could be deleted without looking at content, I have looked at some, and identified a few where I thought a different decision was better. I do not review each one in detail. There are still 50,000 items to be processed. Frankly, I would support an admin bot deleting them all, but that hasn't received support. With several hundred coming up in the queue every day, I can't imagine that one person can do the work to review them all one more time. If you think there should be another layer of review before the deletion process, and there are editors willing to do the review, I'm happy to find a way to accommodate that process. While I do not see it as a good allocation of time, I support every volunteers personal allocation of time, and if some editors want to pour through the dross to find a couple nuggets, they are free to do so. I started with a couple points, and now I am stream of consciousness rambling, so I'll stop writing, and ask for your feedback. What process do you propose?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity DGG, what is your process for review? I was trying to imagine how I would search for articles to rescue, and I realized I wasn't sure how you were doing it. If you are reviewing the deletion log, that sounds like an enormous amount of work. Don't you have to undelete, or at least start the undeletion process to review the article? I would have thought it would be faster to review those about to go into the queue, but if that were the process, they would not make it into the queue, so that must not be the process. To be fair, I am assuming that one can review those about to enter the queue, but I am sure that can be done, even though I am not sure how to do it myself.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Case study Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mini-Fridge
How do you think this should be handled? It was rejected because it doesn't have enough reliable sources. While technically true (there are zero properly formed references) on the face, this reason is outrageous. Wikipedia has a very specific, and hardly obvious way to form references. New editors struggle with this, and established editors should help. There's enough information provided to easily find quite a few references.

Yet...the prose is atrocious. It isn't close to encyclopedic—it looks more like a personal blog stream of consciousness. Is the subject matter notable? Possibly. There are less notable subjects with articles. So does the possibility that an article could be written on minifridges mean this article could be salvaged?

It is my opinion that an average editor could start with this material, and turn it into an acceptable article in about three hours. So does that mean it should be saved? It is also my opinion that an average editor, asked to write a brand-new article on mini-fridges, could start from scratch and create a stub in about two hours. I literally think it would be easier to start with nothing than to start with this draft.

This isn't an isolated incident. I've paused on quite a number of drafts, where the subject matter strikes me as something that deserves to have an article. However, in each of those cases, I felt that another editor with the same subject could create an article and would not find that the draft was any help, and possibly a hindrance, if only for the time needed to review and consider whether anything could be salvaged.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a little ironic that I helped start the current crusade by getting involved for the first time with AfCs and nominating under existing deletion criteria the ones that needed it, which in general people were not doing except for the most blatant copyvio.  As sometimes happens  here, that provoked others to look also, and  and as people saw the junk that had been there for years, they seem to have panicked. As very often happens here and elsewhere, people react to the forced awareness of something they should have been neglecting by getting frantic and over-enthusiastic, instead of quietly and patiently working at the problem. Given the long period the stuff had been there,   and doing it carefully over a few months would have been an acceptable way to remove it--it is in no sense an emergency.
 * The problem with deleting the abandoned articles is that the majority of reviewing in the past has been unhelpful, equally unhelpful at getting articles or keeping them out of WP. Articles were declined for all sorts of wrong reasons, many of them being trivial mistake or incorrect form in citations, wuth some reviewers trying in effect for the equivalent of GA. We've never had those standards in accepting article into mainspace--the attitude has always been that these sorts of problems will get fixed, and that mastering the technique at first is too much to expect of beginners. I myself am quite careless about the sort of details that other people will pick up systematically; I know how to copy edit, but what is often needed here is establishing the basic article. ::As a result, many potentially good articles were rejected, and most of the time people did not follow them up, because they could not find anywhere effective for help until very recently--and looking at things now when help is available, most are too discouraged by a rejection to even ask for help (all teachers know this very well.)  This was helped along by the utterly incompetent system of sending notices, which the people developing have since tinkered with, but need to revise from the start--the reasons given are much too nonspecific, and we don;t even copy them onto the user talk page. (Myself, I almost never use any of the prebuilt reasons--people only learn if you tell them what the specific problems are. ) At the same time,  I'd   many of the reviewers were more concerned over trivial omissions than major problems--partly because they were too inexperienced to recognize the real problems of promotionalism,  copyvio. and hopeless unsuitability for an article. So articles were getting accepted that should never have been, and nobody was bothering removing the worst of the ones that did fall under the general criteria.  You're working under the assumption the reviews were generally right; I work in the knowledge that they were almost always inadequate.
 * So in looking at old AfCs, the first thing that needs to be checked is whether or not they are hopeless. About 2/3 are, and what we should have done is gone through quickly and removed them. The second thing we should have done is gone through looking for ones that were in fact ready or almost ready either as articles or content to be merged or as redirects, and moved them into mainspace. That would be another 10%. We'd then be left with the ones that might possibly be worth fixing, and then the obvious thing is to see if the users are still around and want to work on them. Only a few are. Probably at this point we then make a visible list of the others, and then remove them (the earlier procedure, of moving them to an archive, is another possibility at this point). But that's not what we did. It would have taken work. It usually does, to produce good results. It's so much easier to throw out everything, and not worry about the results. And as a bonus, we don't have to worry if it's being done correctly.  You say you're concerned about being able to keep up with the work if we do it right. That's true, if you think of only doing it yourself. It's even more true if people work at different purposes. And you;rere confusing screening with definitive handling. Of course we'll never be able to finish handling it all definitively, and trying to do too good a job that way is indeed unrealistic. But 300 a day? That's 30 a day for 10 people. You think the effort wouldn't be as useful as writing from the start. I fell that even the roughest draft of something potentially acceptable is helpful, but then I', biased because I find it much easier to rewrite if I have some kind of a draft than to start from a blank page, even if I end by throwing out everything that was originally present. I don;t think this is only my own bias--from the way articles can be seen to grow here, most people here work that way. You're too concerned that you personally won;t be able to follow up-- but someone will.
 * In the existing situation, too much has already been lost. It is very tedious to check deleted articles, and I am now doing it very selectively, and will never be able to go back for the half-year of 2011 I've missed. I am going to make another effort for 2012. But then, everything I do here is inevitably going to be a partial failure.  My key ability is not precision work, but rapid checking. I want to screen as much of every process as I can, and since this is impossible, what I do is put sporadic effort into screening different parts of things I justify this by thinking I will be able to make some kind of impact in each area, and people may see it and learn from it.
 * I'm very disappointed about the AfCs. In the past, when drastic discards of content were proposed, I and other together managed to modify it. We did with unsourced BLPs, we did with popular culture, we did to some extent with elements of fiction. Here, I found no support whatsoever; this is the first time this has happened to me at WP, and the natural thing for me to be concerned about is whether I am losing my effectiveness.  DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Several thoughts running through my head. On bad drafts, your point is ironic, because I've made that very point myself. I've joked that I could start with a draft, literally change every single word, and yet find it useful. That can be true if the original writer of the draft had come up with a basic structure, and that turned out to be useful. However, in many of these case, like the case study above, the original editor, while putting hours into a draft, has contributed little of value beyond a suggested subject. I have no doubt that you could, in a couple hours work, turn out a decent start of an article on just about any subject. If the subject is of interest to you, it might even be fun. If it isn't you might do it anyway because you want to contribute to the project. But that is true if there is a handful, not thousands. The isn't enough of DGG to go around, and I think it is a poor use of resources if DGG spends considerable wiki time working on articles someone else thinks are interesting, but has abandoned them.


 * I appreciate the history of the AfC project. I've inferred some of the history watching the debate over reviewer status. It doesn't take a lot of skill to be a useful reviewer, but it does take some skill, and editors with a handful of editors are unlikely to have those skills. What is worse, a reviewer without a clue is worse than no reviewer at all. So I think things will get better when there is a very low hurdle established for draft reviewers, and those editors do the reviewing and vetting. I am concerned about how to find the right numbers. I feel like I spent years working at the old Feedback forum, and I did, but I checked, and I see only 460 edits to the place. I was burnt out at that level. I think reviewing drafts is a great contribution to Wikipedia, and if someone finds it fun, more power to them, but I see it as work, and something that would qualify as a Sphilbrick/Tour of Duty. (As an aside, I still think that concept has value, but I was unable to muster enough support to get it off the ground.)


 * I appreciate the math, but your numbers scare me. 30 a day for 10 volunteers raises two questions. I can imagine reviewing 30 AfC drafts in a day, but not for a sustained period of time. I try to help out at Wp:CP most days, but one or two is more than enough. It is probably less work to review an AfC draft (a guess), but 30 a day sounds like an unrealistic long-term average. My second concern is the ten volunteers. We aren't talking about the original reviewers, I assume there are more than ten of those, but dedicated resources to review stale drafts to see if they should end up in the dust-bin, or to rescue them otherwise. Ten is a lot of people. I have no doubt a request would get ten editors to sign their name to a list, but six months from now, less than a third will be active. That's a lot of volunteers to find, with the promise of boring work.


 * Having listed some negatives, let me try to be positive:
 * Suggestion 1—When I see yet another band in the list, I have no talent or interest in rescuing the article. Yet we have a Wikiproject with editors interested in the subject. Why not find a way to tag drafts, maybe with a specially designed hidden cat "AfC articles needing attention from Wikiproject X".


 * Suggestion 2—The occasional drives, with their contest atmosphere, are often successful. Why not try a low key version of that idea. Ask editors to sign up to review, not 30 a day, but 30 a week, and create a table where a done check box identifies who has achieved their goal. Let editors select their own goals.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies for chiming in late, I've been away. I do believe that the G13 should be vetted by admins before actual deletion. I know that their deletion is uncontentious but I have rescued a couple and turned them into viable mainspace pages. I am aware that some admins mass delete - on one occasion when working from the cat I refreshd the page a couple of seconds later to find it was blank already, this is obviously faster than one can even read what's on the pages. --KudpungMobile (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, I do not do mass delete. (I'm vaguely aware that there is such an option or tool, but I do not have it). I do open a batch, using linky, evaluate, click delete if appropriate, then go through each tab and delete the ones marked for deletion. Earlier, I wasn't looking closely at the articles, I am now looking at them a bit more, but not yet convinced it is a good use of time. In the last couple batches, I postponed these three for another look. No gems, but maybe someone can rescue one or more.


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John P. Pryor
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jude Barry
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julian Philip Matthew Johnson


 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kepler-22
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Klaus F. Riegel
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Larry Laverty
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Letsbuy.com
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Living Computer Museum
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luis Herrera Cometta-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  10:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The way I  do  it (my  Internet  is possibly  slower here than most  people's) is to  go  through  the cat, ope a dozen or so at  a time each  one in  a new  tab, and then while the tabs are loading  starting  going  through the ones that  have loaded, check them out and continue while the deletion  button  page is loading, then do  another run through the tabs  to  delete them. I'll admit  that  it  only  generally takes a couple of seconds to  review each  article, but  with  the loading  time etc, it  can take an average of a total of least  1 minute to process each  page. Although I've rescued a couple, I  won't  say  that  rescuing  is at  all  my  primary  objective -  G13 is of G13 after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tardive dysphoria
You were a bit quick with that: I was in the process of accepting it and turning it into a redirect. :) Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I decided to try it myself, seemed odd to make a talk page a redirect, although now thinking it would be more natural to move it to article space first. When trying, I see you beat me to it with a better option. However, the timing was interesting, as I was trying to rescueWikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Wood (Photographer); see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewer_help-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies A question and a comment: when I was trying to do the redirect, I was just picking something like Mood Disorder. How on earth did you know to pick Tardive dysphrenia? I thought maybe the phrase was in the draft, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Second, following up on Hasteur's comment in the section below, I restored and gave a stay to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Wood (Photographer). If you looked at it closely enough to be sure it deserves deletion, go ahead, or tell me and I will reverse it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For Wood, I suppose I went generic: no reliable sources, but I don't disagree with a second look--in fact, I'm glad you reversed me, so thanks. As for dysphrenia, I searched for the terms in Wikipedia, and that plus the title of the cited journal article gave me the idea. Hey, Philbrick is a literary character, no? Drmies (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I thought maybe you had some medical expertise, but sounds like good ol' fashioned sleuthing. By literary character, are you referring to the author Nathaniel Philbrick? I really should read him. Oh wait, I looked at that article and saw Stephen Philbrick. How odd. Doubly odd, because I guess most people google themselves some time or other, but this was new to me. Triply odd, because I happen to have The Backyard Lumberjack: The Ultimate Guide to Felling, Bucking, Splitting & Stacking on the shelf behind me (and I spent the weekend splitting wood). I'm finding it difficult to believe this is the minister. Will have to check, even though I think there is no close relation.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum, just checked the back cover of the book, and it says he was a minister.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You spent the weekend splitting wood? What is this, a Monty Python skit? Actually I'm not sure which Philbrick--I came across his name a few nights ago reading Hitchens, Arguably, and thought of you, but then forgot to look it up the next day so I could be more precise. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This looks fascinating; I'm printing it out for my coffee break. But no, it was a character--as in character from a novel, in this case from Waugh's Decline and Fall--mentioned here. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)No, not a sketch. Next weekend I need to take down some trees, and cut into logs, to be split next summer for winter of 2014-15. My woodshed for this winter is only half-full, so need to finish filling it by splitting the logs from trees I felled last summer. It was cold enough this morning to turn on the pellet stove, which is a wake up call my wood work needs completion.


 * Hitchens as in Chris? Big fan, although I've only caught him on TV and articles, haven't picked up any books. Recommendations?


 * I read Moby Dick a couple years ago. I don't think I appreciated it fully. It might be one of those books that needs to be done as part of a discussion group with a knowledgeable leader.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just finished the Hitchen's piece. Depressing, and prescient. Depressing, because I have dreams of doing some writing, and I fancy I can turn out a clever line or two. Then I read Hitchens, and his every other sentence bests my best, and I think I ought to stick to copy-editing. Prescient, because his death came too soon, but that piece foreshadowed his chain smoking alcoholic demise.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Arguably is the only book I have (read), and if my sister-in-law hadn't given it to me for my birthday I wouldn't have ever read him, I think. But it's worth it: it makes me re-read a bunch of poetry, and it's given me a list to take to the library (next up, Flashman). I've grown a bit tired of that somewhat pompous style, though--too many people I read think it's the bee's knees (in Dutch and in English, and I presume other languages as well); it's the language of the essay since de Montaigne, I suppose. Good thing he writes about interesting stuff. Lewis Lapham is the worst, employing a prolixity and syntax that turns me off from what could be a great read. But Moby-Dick...it is truly one of the greatest books ever written, and my feelings parallel those of your namesake to some extent. A dozen times me too, by now, and it's never wasted time. Oh, just go ahead and write; no one else is going to do it for you. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I located an audio version of Decline and Fall downloaded it and listed to it over the last couple days. It was a bit surreal to keep hearing one's own name. I kinda liked the Philbrick who shot the count after besting him in a card game, but that was a made up story. At that point, we were promised that the real story would be even more interesting, but I don't think that story was ever told. Thanks for the post, I had never read Waugh, and now I have.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Postponing G13 nominations
Just a FYI: But a while back I invoked a new category Category:AfC postponed G13 and created a template  to make it easier for editors to indicate they want the G13 postponed and also to allow editors to track how many times the stay of deletion has been given to a specific article. I added the template (which pulls in the category) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The reGives Network. Let me know if you have questions. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Will use that, thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just had a brilliant idea... What if I added a link inside the "admin-eyes-only" section of the Db-g13 template that admin's could click to add the postpone template? This of course would only work to add the template to a previously untemplated draft (it would be unable to increment the counter), but... I like this idea. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would probably work, because if a deletion has already been deferred once, I personally would be even less forgiving if the page landed back on the G13 eligible stack. But it's primarily a convienence to Admins. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction - brilliant. (FYI, if I don't seem like I am using all these shiny new tools over the next couple days, I have a two day off site training seminar coming up, so little Wikipedia work.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've created some buttons that I've added to Template:Db-g13/sandbox that can be seen on Template:Db-g13/testcases. If you could play with those buttons a little and tell me what you think of them (I can't test admin functions here and have tested best I can on ), then I can make final adjustments and add them to the Db-g13 template itself. Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to run out, and then out of town until Friday. I'm looking forward to the new buttons, but cannot do much right away.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All this goes way over my head, and there is more good news: today's G13 winners are 5th Street Gym and Wickles (they're very tasty!). Both need tremendous amounts of work, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

AIAG
Thanks for your cleanup on the copyright issues on the AIAG page. I'd welcome any feedback in detail on how to improve the tone so it's more encyclopedic in nature. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "tone" concern was added when the article looked very different. While the current version is far from perfect, the style problems of the older version have been addressed, so I removed that concern. The other issues are tougher to assess, I'm looking now.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Expanded comments at your talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

OTRS permission
Please explain how you decided that File:Booked Out (2012) Film Poster.jpg had sufficient permission, per 2012030510011496. The author only said "it is free to be used on the internet" with attribution - certainly nothing about cc-by-sa-3.0. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre I don't see the phrase you quoted: "it is free to be used on the internet" with attribution. I do see "The poster is freely available to be used on the internet as defined within our press website www.bookedoutfilm.com/press." That link states:
 * Posters
 * Click on the images below to download a high resolution version of the poster. All posters are public domain.
 * Click on the images below to download a high resolution version of the poster. All posters are public domain.


 * Does this help?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The link above isn't working... it's linking to the ticket ID, not the ticket number. Regardless, the email states "The poster is freely available to be used on the internet " I did a text search and didn't find Creative Commons... I now see it says public domain. I will update the page accordingly. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) I did change the license to match what was provided.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
LukeSurlt c 22:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 14:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Problems communicating with Wikipedia
Dear SPhilbrick, Earlier today you sent me a long message explaining what I already knew and understood perfectly. The point of my earlier note today to Anne DeLong was that it is very difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. From the moment that Wikipedia rejected my article for lack of references, I wanted to DELETE it from Wikipedia, to remove it from any further consideration, but I COULD FIND NO WAY TO DO SO. I do not say that there was no way, but I looked for one and could not find it. If there is one, I should have been offered a link to it immediately so that I could choose to edit the article further or withdraw it. I was given no such information.

Similarly, I wanted to reply to your message, but could find no straight-forward way to do so. After some blind poking around, I decided to try this channel. I shall be pleasantly surprised if it works. I have used wiki software on the Code::Blocks site with no problem, but communicating with Wikipedia is really convoluted. Can you provide a link to any explanation of how to do it?

The long, prolix articles on contributions to Wikipedia need to be trimmed to essentials while essential information about how to communicate with Wikipedia is clearly explained. ClopperAlmon (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ClopperAlmon It is hard, sometimes, to figure out what people do know, and do not know. I'm sorry I explained things you already knew, but maybe the exercise will be worth it for a future use.


 * Technically, once you submitted the draft article on Alfred H. Bartles, you irrevocably licensed the text for use in Wikipedia. There's a message just below the edit box:
 * By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.


 * As a practical matter, if some material is added to a stand-alone page, and no one else contributes, the original editor can blank the page. That doesn't make it go away, but it shows up in a list or articles to be deleted, and it is usually deleted.


 * That process may not be obvious, and it isn't obvious to me how to make it obvious to you. Many editors start something, and then remove everything, so I am guessing we just adopted that as an acceptable process.


 * If you were designing a system, how would you let people know the process for removal? It isn't a common step, so we don't want to clutter up the edit window with instructions that rarely apply.


 * If you had clicked on Help (on the left panel, you would be at this page:
 * Help:Contents


 * That covers many commons situations. Deleting everything you contributed isn't a common situation, so it isn't in the five most common items, but if you got to item 6 "I'm Stuck" and visited either the help desk or the Tea House, someone would have explained the process.


 * As for reaching me, how did you do it? My post ended with a signature, with the word talk. That is a link to my talk page (the one you are on). Did you do that, but think it wasn't clear, or did you try something else?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You said: The long, prolix articles on contributions to Wikipedia need to be trimmed to essentials while essential information about how to communicate with Wikipedia is clearly explained Good idea. Harder to implement that you might think for a couple reasons. One is that you wanted to do one simple thing, and couldn't find out how to do it. So wouldn't it be nice if we had a short list of things you can do, with that one on the list? The problem is, you wanted to do one specific thing, but that one thing is rarely done. There are at least one hundred things an editor might want to do that are more common than deleting all your contributions. So if your item is on the list so are a hundred others, and it is not a simple list.

Second, and relatedly, people do create simple lists. While looking at the Help page, I see a new one has been added Plain and simple/ I bet it started out plain and simple. Then someone comes along as says, great page, but it would be just a little better if you add just this one thing. Sort of a Stone Soup in reverse. So short and simple lists become long, partly because there is a long list of things that you can do.

But this isn't hypothetical. If you simply asked me how to edit, I could point you to:
 * 1) Help:Contents
 * 2) Help:Getting started
 * 3) Plain_and_simple
 * 4) Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia
 * 5) Introduction
 * 6) A_Primer_for_newcomers
 * 7) Tutorial
 * 8) Tutorial/Editing
 * 9) Book:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
 * 10) Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Editing for the First Time
 * 11) Training/For_students
 * 12) Training/Newcomers/Editing basics
 * 13) Training/For_educators
 * 14) Training/For_Ambassadors
 * 15) Help index
 * 16) FAQ
 * 17) New contributors' help page
 * 18) Introduction 2
 * 19) Help:Starting editing
 * 20) Help:Editing
 * 21) Plain
 * 22) The newcomer's manual
 * 23) The newcomer's manual/The basics
 * 24) Video clip on editing

If you have thoughts, they are most welcome, but this challenge is thornier than you might realize.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Grants are available too
I proposed m:Grants:IEG/A redesigned WikiProject Medicine page, for example, for a whopping $10 USD of community money. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 14:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stonecap High School
You removed the speedy tag from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stonecap High School, which is what I would have done, since high schools are almost always notable. I can't find any reliable evidence that the school exists, which is quite odd for an independent school in the United States. A page at Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/StoneCap-High-School/125628154213077 with 3 likes and no address is a strong hint that the school does not exist. The IP who created the submission has no other activity. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Eastmain, I agree. I did a quick search myself, came up with nothing, so deleted as a G3. It was worth the check, thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Troy Boyle
I agree with you, but as you know I nominated that horror show for deletion once and failed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know that. I'm stunned. Thanks for responding.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed that's why you asked! I agree that deletion is warranted, and it goes without saying that I would favor deletion if someone proposed it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for creation/James A. Cusumano
Hi there,

Could you explain to me why the page Articles for creation/James A. Cusumano was deleted? I saw the possible deletion notice yesterday. I've compared the text to James Cusumano's LinkedIn page and, while the text is similar, it's not exactly the same. I'm willing to make any changes necessary - I just need to know what they should be. If you can't do this, could you provide me with a copy of the text from the deleted page?

Thanks so much. Kseldman (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kseldman, I almost always verify copyright violations myself, but did not in this case. It may be one, but I'm not seeing it. I userfied to User:Kseldman/James A. Cusumano. Please note there were other issues, so it still needs some work.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm not seeing what the other issues were - can you let me know so I can fix them? Thanks. Kseldman (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a note that it read like an advertisement, which I admit, isn't very specific. NPOV Might be helpful. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had addressed the ad-speak in a previous edit, and had resubmitted the article for approval before the whole copyright infringement thing came up - could you look through it and see if I did a good enough job with the ad-speak to resubmit once more? Kseldman (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Kseldman (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had addressed the ad-speak in a previous edit, and had resubmitted the article for approval before the whole copyright infringement thing came up - could you look through it and see if I did a good enough job with the ad-speak to resubmit once more? Kseldman (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In the morning.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Kseldman. I removed the comment at the top of the page, as you have addressed it. In terms of the advertising tone concerns, it is, unfortunately the case that when a tag is added, there is no automatic process for removing it, so when editors try to address issues, the tags remain until someone happens to decide to remove them.


 * My main concern is referencing. On the one hand, it appears to have 13 references, which is decent for a new article. However, many are to IMDB. Opinions differ on whether these should even be allowed, but they do not count when establishing notability. See WP:USERGENERATED.


 * I notice that the entire "Early Years" section has not a single reference, no references for birth date, parents names, or other anecdotes about early life.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In terms of the Early Years section, it's tricky, because there are no references - this is what Mr. Cusumano himself has said about his life. If there's no way to verify the content through references, should I just erase the section altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kseldman (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately. It may seem odd, but he doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If he says it to a reporter, and they print it, we can use it. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added a number of references, and deleted the content I had trouble finding sources for. Now the page has been userfied, I'm not sure how to resubmit. Is there any way you could tell me how to do so? Sorry. I appreciate it. Kseldman (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Kseldman, While not looking in great detail, I think it looks ready. Rather than resubmit (and I confess I do not know how, I think you should try moving it to main space. You can do it: #Click on the down arrow next to the search box, Or I can do it, but I'd like to give you the opportunity.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Click on "Move"
 * 2) Change "User" to "(Article)" (Using the drop down selection box
 * 3) Change "Kseldman/James A. Cusumano" to "James A. Cusumano"
 * 4) Click on move page
 * Thanks. I've moved it. I imagine now I just watch it to see if it's flagged as needing further changes, correct? Kseldman (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If you click on the star, near where you clicked on "move" that will add it to your watch list, and you will know if anyone edits it.(If you don't know what this means, ask, and I'll explain.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)