User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 51

Misty Copeland image
Re

Sorry about that. I debated whether or not to nominate it for deletion. I saw the watermark. The thing is, I figured that since the image had been around for a long time, that he's a choreographer, and has uploaded other images that appear legitimate, he probably took the photo and owned it in the first place. Plus, if he did not own it, the image would be brought into light for scrutiny and subsequent deletion, which is exactly what happened. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I might have to write to Copeland and Prescott and ask for an image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't ruled out the possibility that it is legitimate, but when seeing a watermark, seeing a clear copyright statement on another site hosting it, and no OTRS ticket, the starting assumption is that it is not validly licensed. It's a nice image, so I've love to hear that the intention is to provide it, but we'll need a non-watermarked version ad a permission email. (I've had good expereinces writing and asking for images. Far from 100%, but a decent hit ratio.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. I couldn't find it on the net. A lot of sites are blocked here in China, so copyvio searches are often difficult. But I have tagged and bagged around 750 commons copyvio files so far.


 * I've just written to Prescott and Copeland for images. Fingers crossed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to you
Hi. You've left a note for me (somewhere) which I cannot find. Can I be of any help in some capacity? Beebuk 00:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Beebuk I was just thanking you for an edit. I'm happy to see you still contributing. I have fond memories of helping you in your early editing days. We need more like you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Yes, I'm still plugging away--but I regret to say that I'm no closer to "de-listifying" the Pierrot page than I was when we last corresponded.  Here in Bangkok I just don't have the resources; even in the U.S. good libraries are far from our little burg on the Ohio.  And it's such a difficult thing to do!  But I feel that it's something I'll have to apply myself to, eventually. Beebuk 10:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Any problems with a REFUND?
Hi Sphilbrick. While I was at Wikimania over the weekend, I got chatting to a user, User:Dthomsen8 who was unhappy with a few G5 deletions that you made. I did explain the reasoning behind them and I do believe he understands why we need to do G5 deletions as a disincentive for banned users. That said, he's willing to work on the articles if I put them into his userspace.

So, to get to specifics, the articles in question are Cherry Street (Philadelphia), Locust Street (Philadelphia), Pine Street (Philadelphia), Race Street (Philadelphia), Snyder Avenue and Spruce Street (Philadelphia). They were all created by D62943, who I'm pretty unfamiliar with.

Generally, I'm happy with REFUNDing pretty much anything to userspace, beside obvious problems such as copyvios and attack pages etc. Dthomsen8 should be able to then create the articles. My understanding is that he's happy to create the content of the article, he'd just like to re-use the layout, images and templates - and I expect these will help him out. I'm happy to do the REFUND, but wanted to check you didn't have any problems first. Worm TT( talk ) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Short answer, go for it. I'm teaching a class, so I'll elaborate later.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Class is over, so I'll expand. I'm not the biggest fan of DENY. I want to build an encyclopedia, so throwing away decent content grates. However, I accept that editors can become a net negative, to the point that we, as a community, make the decision that the editor should not contribute, and we BAN them. So what happens if they create a sock, and create some content that, had it been created by anyone else, would be acceptable? Throwing it away is throwing away good content, but accepting it means we don't really mean they are BANNED. A ban has no meaning if they can continue to contribute. So I accept that we need to do something with content created by a banned user and that action is to delete it.

So what should we do as a community if banned Editor A creates Article X, it gets deleted, and editor B, in good standing, asks for a copy of the deleted material so they can recreate an article? My first reaction is to be cautious, because while I do a lot in the copyright area, there are still some areas where I am not fully comfortable I know the rules, and this is one of them. which is why I am pinging User:moonriddengirl. When Banned user A created Article X, their edit itself provides a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, which means we can freely use it, but we must give proper attribution. I think that means if editor B is given a copy of the (now-deleted) material, concludes it is fine, and creates an article with no further changes, we have a problem, because that material will be attributed to Editor B, not Editor A. Even if not a legal problem it is at least an ethical problem. However, here is what I think is acceptable: when Editor B asks me to provide a copy of the deleted material, I think I am on solid grounds to provide it. I want them to use the references, glance at the text, but rewrite the text in their own words. If that happens I think we are on solid ground. My concern is what to do if Editor B rewrites the text slightly, so it constitutes a close paraphrase of the original, and posts it as a new article. CSBot won't pick it up, because CSBot doesn't compare new articles against deleted articles. A new page patroller is unlikely to pick it up, because they won’t know what to look for, and don’t have the tools to look even if they knew where to look. I think it means that the admin providing the deleted content has to shoulder the responsibility of looking at the new article, and ensuring that it is not a close paraphrase.

That was my plan. Dthomsen8 asked me for copies of all the deleted material, and my offer was to provide one, with the intention of looking at the resulting article to make sure it didn't violate close paraphrase, and if fine to provide more copies. User:Dthomsen8 asked me for a few, I provided Race Street (Philadelphia) with an intention of reviewing it when created, but never heard back. It is a red link, so hasn't been created, unless it was created as a different name, but I've had no contact from Dthomsen8 regarding any next steps. Thinking further, I'm concerned about my advice to provide the copies. We either need some confirmation from Moonriddengirl that recreation is fine even if it is a close paraphrase of the deleted material, or we need a process to check for such issues and the only viable process I can image is that the admin providing the material accepts the responsibility.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such a detailed reply - hopefully I can address your concerns, though I'm certainly interested in a second opinion from Maggie if she appears! Philosophically, I'm not a great fan of G5 deletions - as you say, removing good content from the encyclopedia grates with me too, especially just because the person who wrote it had become persona non grata. We need to remove problematic behaviours from Wikipedia, not people - and if the person can come back without the problematic behaviour, then they should be welcomed with open arms. That's the basis of my essay on the quiet return. So, let's look at a situation where a person has been banned and without discussing the merits thereof (I believe D62943 is de facto banned, I can't find any ban discussion, but his excessive socking would make it very unlikely that an admin would overturn) - we do need some sort of disincentive to stop them editing. If they're focussing on creating articles - absolutely those articles should be deleted, it will take away the enjoyment for the person and hopefully move them away from Wikipedia. But if it's causing a problem for another user - I do believe we should put that user first. So if Banned user A creates 100 articles and they're all deleted, then User in Good Standing B says he wanted to expand 5 of them, then they should absolutely be undeleted. I don't think you have a problem with that point of view. That leaves the question of how to proceed. We can work in two ways. Firstly, a straight undeletion to user space where the article is expanded until it is substantially different and moved to the article space - this will mean editing history is in tact, the banned user will get the credit for creating the article, but there are absolutely no copyright violations or possible close paraphrasing issues. This is my preferred solution. Secondly, undelete the article to user space, allowing the User in Good Standing to create the similar article. They must be careful to not re-use anything that would violate copyright or plagiarise the original, so for example, using the same layout and templates should not be a violation as they match Wikipedia's in house style and should not be considered as taking enough "sweat of the brow" to create. Beyond that, it gets complex - are adding the same images plagiarism? What about the same sources? How much can you write about a street that doesn't match the original? It certainly makes my head hurt - that's why the first is my preferred solution, it's definitely the best way forward. Worm TT( talk ) 07:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm prepping to teach another (all-day) class today, will respond in more detail this evening. I mostly agree, with some concerns. will elaborate tonight. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some further thoughts—while I am sympathetic to your suggested approach, it appears to conflict with Banning policy That does not mean case closed, but it does mean that you and I cannot just agree on what to do and do it, we need to address the policy. This is clearly not the right place to modify policy. Before jumping to Village pump (policy) I'm think that a discussion at Village pump (idea lab) may be warranted (I think one should go directly to VPP if you have a clear, thought out proposed change, than can be enacted or rejected, with possibly minor word smithing. I don;t think we are there yet.)
 * It would be useful to start something, then get some community input with an RfC. For example,you and I have talked about one aspect of banning policy, but have you seen the kerfuffle on Jimbo's page over whether editors other than Jimbo can remove banned editors posts summarily, even thought Jimbo sometimes engages? That would be worth discussing. ON a related issue, did you see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Long, intense discussion about the same issue. This isn't a coatrack, all three have the same central topic - how should the community respond when a banned editor edits?
 * If I write up a summary, will you follow to VPI, or do you have a better idea?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fairly in depth for a small issue. As I said, this chap is blocked, not banned - perhaps de facto banned at best. There has not been a community discussion on his edits - or has there been and I've missed it? You are right, there's a massive issue at the heart of this - how do we ban a user on an anonymous encyclopedia, but there's no way I'm waiting around for that to get fixed! Worm TT( talk ) 12:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry missed that. Will revisit my thoughts.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, I didn't realize the editor was blocked, rather than banned. Per block log, the issue was edit warring, which of course is serious, but in this context, good news. If the block had been for violation of copyright rules, then we would want to take extra care when looking at a deleted page to make sure there are no copyright issues. That doesn't appear to be the case, so I am fine with your approach. Restoring to a user space does preserve the editing history, and avoids my copyright question, although I suspect there are some editors who would elevate DENY to the point they would object, so we have to be prepared to have that conversation. Re-use of the same images? I see almost no issues. Maybe if the images were arranged on the page in a way that could be construed as artful, but that's rare, and doesn't apply to any of these situations. I feel the same about references. While one can argue there is effort in identifying references, I don't recall any copyright cases where something like this is even alleged. S Philbrick (Talk)  12:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was initially concerned about copyright (that's one of my 2 reasons not to REFUND), but there's so little there that it's not worth worrying about. I'm happy to argue with anyone over DENY - I see so many blocked editors who are not worth our time, those who are actually creating content aren't as much of a concern. If anyone else gets grumpy, send them my way! In any case, I'll get on and undelete those pages and will ensure they get to a decent state before they head into article space. Thanks for taking bit of time and chatting about the issues! Worm TT( talk ) 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about an article restored to userspace
Hi Sphilbrick, I noticed you userfied User:Tomp55/Devin Hays after a request at WP:REFUND. I am a little curious about this as it was deleted as a blatant hoax and there is no hope of this ever returning to main space as the content is complete fiction. Or, as a simpler question, would it be appropriate to delete the userfied copy for the same G3 reasoning, or should I go to MFD at this point? Thanks!Resolute 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that it was deleted as a hoax. I even vaguely reading some of it, because I was suprised to read that the NCAA does not allow overlapping sports. I know my wife played overlapping sports, but that was pre-NCAA. I fear I may have gotten lost down memory lane and missed the elephant in the room. There should be no need to go full MfD. Option 1. I move it back into main space, and tell editor I made a mistake, then one of us deletes as hoax. Option 2, if you have a better idea, but let's not go MfD.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With my hockey background, that aspect of the hoax was pretty obvious - he claimed to have played at age 26 in a junior league with an age cap of 20. Among other things - including the copyvio images that were deleted from Commons. It was amusing, at least! As for deletion, I'd say then to simply delete the user copy. No sense getting bureaucratic unnecessarily, I think. Simple errors should only require simple solutions. Cheers! Resolute 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Resolute 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:CSK VVS Samara (women's football club) players
Hi, you deleted this category as a C1 when it wasn't empty. Please restore, thank you. Målfarlig! (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry about that, I'm usually good at checking for that.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Life
Its your parents and siblins considered early life just asking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilk846 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry what? -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is parents and siblings considered early life in a person bio just asking Lilk846 13:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that would be my assumption. One isn't required to have an "Early life" section, but I tend to use them, and that would go there.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you just wondering 13:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilk846 (talk • contribs)

Pierre de Coubertin & Luz Long
Yes, it's been a while since I made those edits. I'll try to wrack my brain for the details. :-)

I first read about Lutz Long awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal in a book about Olympic spirit and sportsmanship whose title I don't recall (it also included information of such athletes as Derek Redmond and Shun Fujimoto) back in 2001 or so, and when I came upon the article on Wikipedia, I drew upon what I remembered reading to expand his article.

My edits that he was awarded the medal posthumously comes from deduction and logic: The Pierre de Coubertin medal was introduced in 1964, but Long died in 1943, so he could only have been awarded the medal posthumously.

At the time, I didn't have sources that Lutz Long was actually awarded the medal, but IIRC, the existing Wikipedia articles already stated this. There are several sourced publications out there that state his award. Doing a search, I found some online sources, including and some Google Books search results: ,

Hope this helps, and I'm glad to see a relative of Luz Long taking an interest in articles to which I provided a small contribution. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information. I will pass it along to the person working on the book. I had passed on the Scrivener article, but the others are new to me. They have been unable to confirm it, and, not surprisingly, some of the more recent sources that state it picked it up from Wikipedia, so I'll check out to see if any predate us.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

An annoying request for you
Since you just deleted the userpage I moved it from, can you delete this revision and the (18) older ones on 2nd Dragoon Regiment (France)? I forgot I had used that userpage before drafting the article; it'll confuse anyone looking through the history of the new article, and I don't need to save any of those old edits. Much appreciated, &mdash;innotata 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying but I'm missing something-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash;innotata 01:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User Lactasamir
I see you posted to User talk:Lactasamir as did I in the past. However, I think that this is a hopeless case. I'm about to raise a CCI after finding him adding more copyvio today. He also has ignored requests to cite properly and he seems to have no judgement about sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm in day one of 2 all day meetings, so will check back Thursday.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

USA Women’s 3x3 Teams
Hi Sphilbrick, I came across the above article whilst perusing the DYK talk page. I haven't done a full review but have noted both at the DYK template and at Talk:USA Women's 3x3 Teams that I think there be an issue or three with the article name. Of course I could be talking absolute nonsense but you may want to take a look at it. Cheers - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 00:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Danube Valley Cultures
Hello friend :) it seems that I need to work of my copyright abilities I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone by using copyrighted material. History is my passion and sometimes I lose track of all the things I want to share with Wikipedia. I now understand how important the copyright rules are, and I would do anything to make Wikipedia satisfied. I am pleading for the return of the article Danube Valley Cultures. Is there any way I could edit the deleted article. And make everything wrong right again. My greatest wish is to get a second change to edit what has been deleted and to make sure anything copyrighted are treated the right way. The article about the Danube Valley Cultures are a very important piece of tool to understanding the entire Neolithic Balkans.Lactasamir (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see response to message above this one.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you :) I can promise you that from now on there will be no more copyvio or bare urls. From now on i will make sure to follow Wikipedia rules. I know this is not the place to bring it up, but i need so make it clear that i am disabled and therefore i have difficulties when it comes to do the same thing as "normal" people. Editing on Wikipedia is one of the things that brings joy to my life, i feel that i can contribute i some small way to the society. So when i edit in Wikipedia it takes a lot of strenght and therefore i have a tendency to copyvio or make bare urls because i will take me very long time to write the edit i my own words. But from now on i will only make edits with the help from one of my family members so it will be done correctly. Have a nice day. :) Lactasamir (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One more thing, i promise to go back in my edits and remove bare urls and make sure that the correct information about the linked page. This will take some time but slowly i will make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactasamir (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review
Many thanks for taking the plunge (and the time) on this. Iztwoz (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Really sorry not to have responded to any comments - I had been waiting for some sort of alert from one of my 'watched pages'. So - I have only just looked at page and will start to address issues raised today. Thank you Iztwoz (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to say many thanks for your input on this. I added a little more from the article you noted - it's all such clever stuff this here body of ours! Iztwoz (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the pass. The icon is up! Hope you have the confidence to take on some more reviews now - Iztwoz (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Only The Young Die Good (film)
Hi Sphilbrick, just got you message about the page Only The Young Die Good. I'm very new to Wikipedia and so I make a lot of mistakes. I don't even know if this is the right page to contact you on. I have updated the page on reading your message and I think I might have resolved the issues. If not please let me know and what I'm still doing wrong. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomo_557755
 * I responded at your talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I just finished updated the page Only The Young Die Good and hopefully I've managed to fix the plot synopsis wording. Let me know if it needs anymore changes. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomo_557755 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomo 557755 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. I would change 2 days to two days, but that's your call.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sub category deletion
You deleted Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page. However, CSD G8 does not appear to have been deprecated. Was it perhaps an inadvertent deletion on your part? Safiel (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled, too. You didn't give a reason for the deletion, either. I've restored it based on the assumption it was accidental.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely an accident. I'm trying to reconstruct what happened, and do not see how it could have happened, although, of course it did. Wait, maybe I do have a hint, although I don't get why it should have happened. I deleted quite a number of talk pages, each depended on a non-existent page. Then I turned my attention to the subcategories, and saw that there were five. I deleted each of the five, one of which was Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page. However, that category shouldn't be showing up in that list, should it? That cat is often empty, and I've never seen it in there before. Whenever I delete an empty cat, I confirm it is empty, and I watch for the message indicating cats that can be empty. I don't recall seeing that message. So it still adds up to my mistake, but I wish I knew exactly what happened.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, not that you care about the gory details, but I think I figured it out. I had the category open as a tab, as I had just been working in it and cleaning it out. I finished emptying it, but then did not close it. I then opened four tabs with empty subcats. I walked through each one of them, confirming they were empty and deleted them, but I still had the subcat in question open, so I mechanically verified that it was empty, missed the message and deleted it as one of five, when I meant to deleted four. I'm glad to have figured it out, because I can now change my process. When I empty a subcat, I should make sure to finish by closing the subcat, not leaving it open.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Phil, I'm glad you figured it out, but only for your own peace of mind. These things happen, and it was easily fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and more anecdotal evidence to justify our insistence on AGF:) Seriously, while I realize I've spent more time worrying about it than it took to fix it, I do a lot of deletions, and I have a process. If that process was flawed (which it was), it could happened again. Now that I've figured out what happened (which arose due a small change in my usual process) I can modify it. No promises I won;t make another mistake, but I'll try to keep the number low :) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured it was inadvertent. I know how easy it is to make a tiny mistake and screw half a page up. :) Safiel (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine
Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine was emptied by the nominator for deletion and you deleted it. Please restore it so an adequate discussion can be held on the topic. I am working to reverse the emptying.--TM 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article is back without improvement
Can you help advise at 5 day old World Spiritual Foundation. Saw your name here. Thank you. Tajudin69 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not catching the nature of your request. I originally deleted it because it qualified as a G13. It doesn't now. If you are suggesting it should be deleted, it has to go through the normal process. If you are asking something else, please let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do a formal deletion request. Tajudin69 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:All disputed non-free Wikipedia files
Why did you delete this category? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not paying proper attention.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett
I agree with your comment that the poster wasn't clear as to what he wanted, and it wasn't directly relevant to Carol and Sitush. I would have been ready to propose a ban from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk (WP and WT) space as an alternative to a site ban. However, the topic has now been closed, and will be re-opened sometime. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was only closed as a non admin closing because it seemed unrelated and not actionable and the original collapse made statements that were not accurate. No one is truly unsanctionable. If an admin feels strongly about re-opening that, I will not object, but...I caution against it at the moment or until such time that clear and unquestionable actions have been made. Many of the reasons why things don't stick to Eric is simply because editors tend to bring more heat than light to these discussions. Sometimes...Eric's reputation proceeds him in very unflattering ways...but the issue must be violations that are clear, well stated and unquestionable. He tends to understand the difference between being unkind and crossing lines that become sanctionable.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Future of Life Institute
Ignore this, just seen Draft:Future of Life Institute and now I understand. Thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was easy :) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Moriah Jefferson
can you put a picture of her cause I just started they said I couldn't do it. iuuxx3 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ican. I can't do it right away, because I'm getting ready for a meeting with Jimbo, so I'll have to check in tomoorrow. Are you talking about a photo you have, or one from somewhere else? S Philbrick (Talk)  20:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * one from elsewhere I show you iuuxx3 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC) http://www.thehour.com/sports/parade-honors-national-champion-uconn-women/article_c2d42e2f-dcba-5907-98ea-8e1c9cd601c6.html?mode=image&photo=4
 * That's a nice photo. That photo is copyrighted, either to Jessica Hill, or to  the newspaper.  Let me look to see if I have a free photo. If not, or even if I do and that one is better, we would need a permission statement from the copyright holder. Would you like to try arranging that? I can help, if you want, or I can try myself.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

you can try yourself i don't how to do it. iuuxx3 (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for USA Women's 3x3 Teams
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action in RfA
There is a time and place for affirmative action. WP's RFA process is one of those places. I think the amount of opposition to the idea is clearly one of the reasons why women's participation is so low. Cla68 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It is an insult to women to suggest that they need to get preferential treatment in RfA.


 * It there were evidence that women candidates were failing more often than men, it would be reason to look to see if there were institutional bias, or other issues which require remedies. I don't even think that is the case. It is quite well-know that there are fewer women editing Wikipedia than men, by a wide margin, and more need to be done to change that (I'm doing my small part by contributing to Gender_gap_strategy/Toolkits and creating User:Sphilbrick/Gender_Gap_resources). There are plenty of areas that need attention, but preferential treatment of female RfA candidates isn't one of them. Even if someone identifies an RfA issue involving women, changing the pass ratio is a bandaid, not a remedy. We need real remedies, not pretenses that we are doing something.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)