User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 52

following up re: pages created by banned users
Hi there,

I'm hoping to follow up on the thread started at Chinatown, Providence and then carried on at what is now User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_48 (and elsewhere). Regretfully, life called and I went on a wikibreak shortly thereafter, so I was wondering if it went anywhere? Not necessarily concerned about that Chinatown article in particular -- more the policy implications. Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion at this page


 * You contributed early, but may not have seen the whole thread. In fact, I hadn't seen some comments until now. I didn't see clear direction, but I confess I scanned it quickly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Research assistance available
The WP Library has granted me access to Cochrane, BMJ, OUP and HighBeam, if there is something from these resources that would be helpful drop a note on my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The reason for my original request may not pan out the way I had hoped, but I'll keep this on mind.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TBW Hor noTag low res.png
 Thanks for uploading File:TBW Hor noTag low res.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is that a spammy article was deleted. I uploaded it per request, no problems if it gores away.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS at ANI
If you feel a dead horse is being beat, drop me a note on my talk page. If you feel my five point summary warrants address please post to ANI. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to give this the time it deserves, sorry.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my recent postings at PUMP, VRT and FTNB regarding my belief there is a need for disclosure of COI on OTRS team edits suggested by secret COI correspondence and comment as you see fit. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Manuel Yberri de Negri
Just letting you know I've restored it, and corrected the target. (I was about to correct it when you zapped it...) The creator put the redir title in instead of the target. Easily done. 8-) Peridon (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - just to be clear, do I need to do anything, or was this just a heads up?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I've done it. Just letting you know in case you knew something about it that I didn't, which could mean it shouldn't have been done. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine, no issues.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 8, August-September2014 by, ,

 Read the full newsletter   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
 * Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
 * New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
 * Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Revdel
Hi Sphilbrick! Can you do a quick revdel for copyright over at GQ Thailand? Revs are listed in the tag, which IPs are edit warring over, so best to remove the irritant. Thanks! Crow  Caw 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, am I reading correctly it needs rev del back to intitial edit?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was copied straight from the company's press release. Crow  Caw  21:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you deleted that userspace draft...
Could you check out this one? User:Seth Fleming I tagged it for a U5 as it is just the user using it as a webhost, but it was declined by an administrator. I'd rather not sort out an entire MfD because one admin decided to be picky. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I left a message on the user's talk page frankly don't expect it to be fruitful but I think it is important to try. I added it to my watchlist but I confess I have too many things at my watch list. If we don't get the response we want soon I'll go ahead delete but you might have to poke me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor has edited, and while they may not know how to check their talk page, maybe the missing page will alert them that something is wrong.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong page....
I strongly suspect you want User talk:William M. Connolley here. As far as I know, William is not watching his biography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's embarrassing. Thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It has happened before ;) With regard to the yellow pig eyelashes, have you ever sung the mathematical 'international' version of Im schwarzen Walfisch zu Askalon? Serten (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say no, but sounds like something I should do. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As a mineralogist, I am not allowed to do so, but Guano and Ichthyosaurus goes well. 'The end of the world is coming, Things can't go on long in this way; The Climate formation can't stand it, Is all that I've got to say!' ;) Serten (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

An aside regarding the NDGT article
I noticed your oppose of the alternate text proposal at the NDGT article. While I share your concerns, I wanted to express to you semi-privately why I think the compromise text should be supported. For me, it's a "split the baby" solution. It is not ideal, for the reasons you stated in your oppose. But it is far better than not mentioning it at all. And that text provides a "base" of sorts that mitigates against spurious attempts to remove any mention of it for "BLP" reasons. (The current state of BLPN is a concern to me as well, as I see editors crying "BLP" to simply keep out information they don't like, but that's for another discussion.) And as Wikipedia is dynamic and not static, the wording of the text can be tweaked and expanded as necessary, as consensus changes. LHMask me a question 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting point, but I'm not yet persuaded. I'm fully aware that I won't get the wording I want (close to Collect's although that is too wordy for me). However, while being willing to compromise on the precise wording, length, number and identification of sources, I don't think accepting something which isn't close to capturing the key points is useful. I catch your point that it keeps something in the article, which might be improved over time, but that point cuts both ways. I could easily see an editor in the future, seeing a trivial comment about a misquote, tossing it as undue. How could one object?


 * As an aside, it is interesting that you referred to a "split the baby" solution. I urge you to read Judgment of Solomon. The message is not supportive of compromise. That strengthens my belief that we ought to do something that is right, or concede that Wikipedia is not up to the task.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thinking that through a bit, that was a poor wording choice on my part. I was just meaning that it was a solution that neither side was going to like, but that those who opposed even a mention THAT brief and bland would be exposed for their intransigencee to any compromise. But yeah, the Solomon reference wasn't ideal. LHMask me a question 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it wasn't the intention, but maybe the choice was apt:) I get that reasonable compromise means that both sides may not like the result, but there's a big difference between compromising on some of the aspects, as long as the fundamental point is retained. I think it is interesting that Tyson says the quote came from Genesis, when it really came from Isaiah, but that's not a key point, and I wouldn't go to the mat insisting that all the errors made by Tyson should be included. The year is a more important point, because claiming it happened right after 9/11 means the purported point about religious divisiveness is especially cogent. While I think that ought to be included, I can compromise for the sake of brevity and exclude the timing blunder. Tyson also got the quote wrong, which is not, as some claimed, attributable to being an off-the-cuff remark; Tyson made a point of consulting his notes before reciting the "quote" but even this is not worth fighting to include. So what if he got the quote a little wrong? Yes, people quoting others ought to get it right, especially when they claim to be quoting him, and I would include that if I got my druthers, but I can compromise on that point. By now, I hope you are wondering what I do consider key. The onlty thing of substance in the latter two proposal is the misquote, and I've said that is something I can give up. The problem is that the only thing in the proposals is a minor point rather than the substantive point. The substantive point is that a speaker, purporting to explain to an audience how many people get things wrong, tells an anecdote whose point is that President Bush was trying to divide we from they (Muslims) and he was doing no such thing. It is a gratuitous slam, accusing someone of religious divisiveness, who did nothing of the kind. That's the key point, and neither of the last two proposals even hints at that point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is true, and gives me some pause in supporting. I will have to think a bit more about it, before deciding whether to strike my support, but you do raise valid issues with the compromise texts. LHMask me a question 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you reached out to me. Sometimes, I think the glare of a public talk page makes it difficult for people to change their mind, so I am supportive of semi-private discussions to reach solutions. I realize that this page is as visible as any article talk page, but you know what I mean. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I attempt to keep an open mind, and your opposition there was soundly-reasoned, but I felt was missing the context of getting some mention of the incident in the article and building a better mention after that happened. After reading your further reasoning, though, I can see very clearly why you ended up where you did. I'll revisit the discussion (hopefully) later this evening. Thank you for engaging--it's always nice to have a discussion where more light than heat is generated. LHMask me a question 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise: something everyone dislikes
Sphilbrick, would you be willing to reconsider your opposition to the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character and scientific understanding . . ." I'm not in love with it, either, but it may be the best chance to achieve a consensus compromise for inclusion. Please consider. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my interjecting here, as I had a similar conversation with Sphilbrick above. I have to say, I have nearly been convinced that none of the options deserves support. The "attacked Tyson's character" thing is what's really putting it over the edge for me. It utterly shifts the weight from the Tyson to the people who uncovered what he did, which is just beyond the pale, as I think about it more. While I haven't struck my own support (yet), I am seriously considering doing so. LHMask me a question 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, LHM, but at least it acknowledges (a) Tyson's screw-up, (b) as confirmed by his apology. That's no small thing.  If we get this done, it makes breaking the logjam at The Federalist article much easier, and there should be little argument about including at least one link to The Federalist from The Federalist article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True. And what you write here and below are the main reasons I haven't, as yet, struck my support. But this is beyond "hold your nose and !vote for it", I think. It's more like "drink this water that's only slightly piss-y instead of the water that someone took a dump in." I find the "attacked Tyson's character" language that objectionable. LHMask me a question 01:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. But I'm willing to swallow some shit to break the stranglehold of the "no way, no how" crowd that is determined to exercise this BLP-overstrech veto.  There's more at stake than the exact wording.  If four or five editors are permitted to effectively exercise a veto over factually correct, neutrally worded, reliably sourced text to achieve a partisan outcome, a very dangerous precedent will have been set for BLP policy in the future.  Even folks like Jytdog are having doubts in quiet moments.  Twelve months from now, the only thing anyone will remember is that the "quotegate" reference was inserted into the NDGT article, and the attempted BLP pretext veto was broken.  Please consider.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not a close call. Tyson attacked Bush's character, over and over again, falsely. Some websites called him on it. The reporting got a bit hyperbolic, and that may be worth reporting, but to characterize it as an attack on Tyson's character is to miss the whole damn point. Do we characterize the Woodward and Bernstein reporting as a "newspaper attacking the character of Richard Nixon"? Of course the reporting raises questions about the character of Tyson/Nixon, but the story is the false accusation/cover-up of wrong doing. (For the lurkers who are fainting away, no I do not pretend that the Tyson incident is as serious as the Nixon incident - I'm exaggerating to make the point.)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand your point, Sphilbrick. That being said, just as Bush was unfairly held up as a buffoon by Tyson, some of the attacks on Tyson were equally over the top.  The Big Picture: If we get off the dime on the NDGT article, we can then shake something loose for The Federalist article that actually cites the key Sean Davis article and be done with this.  Holding out for something you or I might draft is a simple formula for conceding the issue to the partisan stonewallers and, worse, concedes the policy ground on this ridiculous stretch of BLP to include WEIGHT and UNDUE.  There's more at work here than the exact wording of a compromise.  The real issue, for me anyway, is reeling in this power grab by exercising a veto for all BLP content based on the flimsiest of pretexts.  Yes, it may be a distasteful compromise, but it moves the ball forward, and pushes back on the overstretch of BLP.  Twelve months from now, no one will remember or care about the exact wording in the NDGT article, but the BLP veto-overstretch for partisan outcomes could last for a long damn time of we don't take it down a peg.  If you can't support, I ask that you at least don't oppose, thereby reinforcing the "no way, no how" crowd.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Available to review a draft?
Hello Sphilbrick, I hope is well with you. Although we've met briefly in person and talked offline just a bit, I wonder if you would be willing (or have time) to look at a draft proposal for the Heritage Action article?

The new draft is an attempt to make the article more encyclopedic, improve the sourcing and give a better overview of the organization. This was prepared under my supervision and originally proposed by a colleague, User:Morzabeth, who had struggled to get editors to stay around to discuss after initial feedback. Since this has stalled, I'm stepping in to assist.

You can find the proposed replacement draft in Morzabeth's user space; as Morzabeth explained in her initial request (which is still open) the current version of the article has many shortcomings, which we have aimed to fix. Our goal is a neutral accounting of the organization, she has made updates based on feedback received so far, and and I'm certainly open to making more changes as needed.

If you're interested, so far, the discussion has mainly taken place on the Heritage Action Talk page, following the message linked immediately above. I'd very much appreciate if you could take a fresh look at the draft and see what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should be able to take a look sometime today.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, that's terrific. Let me know what you think once you've had a chance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I started, but please see User_talk:Morzabeth-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hadn't seen that until now. Yes, I've been thinking about taking this section-by-section, though it's a challenge: our structure doesn't quite match the existing article. I'll give this some thought over the weekend, and I'll keep you posted. Thanks for having a look, and I'd appreciate you participating once I figure out the best way forward. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on change to rfc closure
I was wondering if you could quickly comment on your thoughts about my proposal in response to your thread Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment. I am thinking about bringing this proposed policy change to wp:village pump (policy), and before I did I wanted to see if you had any suggested modifications. (I also created a sandboxed, proposed modification to the RfC template to support this (you can see it in my sandbox at User:Obsidi/sandbox). --Obsidi (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have many thoughts, here are a couple - one is that we ought to be thinking about where to have the discussion, it is clear that the RfC talk page is the wrong page. Ultimately, it ought to be at WP:Policy, but I urge you to start at idea lab. While I like some of your thoughts, there are a number of moving parts, and I think the idea lab is a better place to work them out. For example, I think three editor panel, some or all of who would be non-admins might make sense in some cases. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought things like this go in Village pump (policy) and not Village_pump_(idea_lab), was I wrong about that? (Or were you referring to idea lab as village pump in general?) --Obsidi (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically, you are right. VPI is relatively new. Many editors skip it and go right to Policy. I think that is acceptable in rare circumstance - when you have a well-formulated proposal for a change to policy that can be addressed by an up or down vote. I'll emphasize that this is my personal desire, but motivated by experience with brain-storming exercises. It is important, in such exercises, to separate the idea phase, when you are trying to find a solution to a problem, from the enactment phase, when you have to choose among two or more options created in the brainstorming phase. When we go to Policy first, and the propsal isn't clear-cut, we try, very poorly, to do brainstorming, editing and voting all in the same place, with the usual result that nothing happens.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, well I put my idea here: Village_pump_(idea_lab). --Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide/Workshop
Hello! I made this edit a few minutes ago and I would appreciate your input as a clerk with experience at Arbcom. Specifically, am I submitting that material in the correct place and in the correct format? I went through several past cases and selected what looked like a common form for refuting evidence, but there was quite a bit of variation. Thank you for your time. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am out of town on a business trip, expecting to be home tomorrow evening. You posed a question that will require some research on my part, I am also contacting some others to make sure I give you good advice.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your quick response.  also took a look and made a tweak, so I'm thinking all's well. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that "analysis" need to be signed by Tgeairn? As it stands, it isn't, which makes it look like it's intended to be a dispassionate, unbiased "analysis", which it most certainly is not. LHMask me a question 00:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the emphasis in your statement, I do agree that it needs to be attributed to me in some way. Since Sphilbrick is out of town, I also asked to take a look and tell me which dotted line to sign on. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You think your analysis was dispassionate and unbiased? LHMask me a question 00:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I gotta say, I've never fully understood what the Workshop pages are for--I thought they wuz for ArbCom members only. Which reminds me I still have to weigh in somewhere, though I don't have that much to say. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought as well. But I haven't paid real attention to an Arbcom case in many years (maybe back when Giano got dragged in front of them in 2007 or thereabouts?), so I might be wrong. LHMask me a question 00:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the bright side (yes, that is a bright side), Zambelo is out of the picture, and that saves me a lot of typing--their accusations were ridiculous. Sphilbrick, thanks for cleaning that up. Their now-deleted talk page had me as a member or something like that of Landmark worldwide, which is the second-most ridiculous thing I heard today. (My first edit in that Landmark cluster, whenever that was, not long ago, is the first time I heard of them.) Lithistman, I had a look at the accusations made by Astynax; much of that is related to that NRM list and I have very little to say on the topic. I don't think I ever edited that article. But Zambelo's case suggests something important: it is easy to get carried away and to have content discussions turn personal and antagonistic, and to divide editors into pro- and anti-camps, as if that's all they are. Zambelo noted that I had posted NRM-related message on Cirt's talk page; yes, I have, though many of them were automated notifications, but what Zambelo can't or won't see is that Cirt and I go way back, waaay back--not always as the best of friends, frequently in disagreement, but always I hope with some mutual respect. If Cirt were a party in this ArbCom case, I would not want to say a single bad word about them. But if anyone thinks for one moment that my edits to all these articles are based on anything but policy (sure, my reading of policy), they are mistaken. I said it before, I have no dog in this fight. I have no love for any NRMs, or for any old RMs for that matter, but no hate either. Thanks all, and I hope that cool(er) heads will prevail. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to associate myself very much with this, although from a slightly different perspective (apparently) on what policy has to say about the issues relating to Landmark specifically, and NRMs more generally. I "have no dog in this fight" either, and found it disturbing to be lumped in with Zambelo as an "anti-Landmark" POV-pusher of some sort. I too have no experience with Religious Movements, whether of the New or Old varieties. I simply stumbled on the article at the end of July, had some serious concerns about its tone and content, placed a tag, and things snowballed from there. LHMask me a question 18:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Over lengthy
Sorry about the excessive length of my evidence. I hadn't realised that the limit included responses. Enough is enough; I have deleted the recent additions. DaveApter (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite understandable, thanks for responding so quickly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN closure
No, you cannot talk me into it — for the simple and embarrassing reason that I've never figured it out, and I suppose I'd mess something up. Would you please add it for me? Please write a message of "The RFC/U was properly deleted, although another one may be filed." and copy/paste my signature from the bottom of the section, and don't sign your name, so that any objections come to me instead of to you. Nyttend (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help! Nyttend (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Many many thanks
For notifying all the involved parties in all the cases. I had feared this was not going to happen, and I would have had to stick my head above the parapet again! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC).


 * I've got many more to go, but getting there :)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Red Headed Stranger
-- GD uwen  Tell me!  21:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked socks
Not really a lot of point notifying all the members of The Troubles case. Many of them turned out to be the same person! Giano   (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it is easier to notify all than to tease out which ones need notification. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit
Got it down to 16 in the queue. Most of the remaining either have an ongoing discussion or were posted by myself or another paid editing business and only a few are older than September. Also, I noticed a few other editors have started picking these up now and then. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, very impressive.


 * I haven't been pulling my weight there, but the OTRS permission queue is stuck north of 700 open requests, so I'm trying to help out there.


 * Do you know why other editors started picking some up? I wish it were because it is now in the admin dashboard, but that doesn't seem likely. It would be good to know what did work.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What is the status of RealNetworks and James T. Butts, Jr.. I see both marked done by you, but they are still in the list. Is there something yet to be done, or do they just need closing?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The "done" icon is referring to completing the task associated with an editor's feedback. On RealNetworks he pointed out a citation I used that was un-needed and on Butts they pointed out I hadn't filled out all the citation parameters, so I completed those tasks.


 * Not sure what is drawing editors to the Request Edit queue, but I saw an IP that was active and a few unfamiliar usernames. Could be nothing. A lot of the ones I closed will pop back hopefully with stronger sources. I also have Monroe College on my to do list, because that one needs someone to write "the rest of the article" to balance out the page, so it's going to take a lot of effort to get a decent page in place. CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Article subject submission wizard
Would you be comfortable taking it live? I think I should not be the one to do it, to avoid even the remote appearance of COI. I note the project already has four participants and while it could use more technical support to better develop the wizard, I believe it does work. CorporateM (Talk) 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Not at the moment, I willing be poking around doing some little stuff, but I have to run out shortly, and want to get back up to speed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. I just did some tweaks to a bunch of the templates/forms and whatnot for copyediting-type stuff and made sure everything was working. Once it's live, I'd like to revisit Template:COI_editnotice and see about changing the "click here" to this wizard page. CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will work on this this evening or tomorrow. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also pinged Mattsenate to see if he knew how to keep working request edit templates on the preload pages, without adding the preload page itself to the Request Edit category. And Theopolisme regarding the COI Editnotice template that could advertise the wizard on individual pages. He setup a tracker to see how many people click on it as a form of performance measurement a year ago, so it'll be interesting to see if it works. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Last evening didn't happen, have some work to do this morning, will try to look at it in PM.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

re discrectionary sanctions on sexuality article talk pages
Erm, OK.... I guess. Jokestress has not edited since that case, so... not sure why this would happen now. Unless it's directed at James Cantor, which... dunno. But fine, I'm not really an expert on discretionary sanctions works, I think it's something like "mind your P's and Q's or else", which is essentially, fine, it's certainly tedious dealing with people who don't mind their P's and Q's. Dunno why all of a sudden you are tagging this onto this old case, but... maybe that's how it works. Seems like odd process, but welcome on the merits, so OK. "All pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification" is what it says. You are going to tag the specific talk pages you have in mind, I suppose? Herostratus (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have no plans to tag talk pages. I hope that isn't necessary. In an unrelated case, someone noted that we sometimes talk about pages and sometimes talk about articles When imposing discretionary sanctions.


 * In order to clean up history, all prior cases with discretionary sanctions have been reviewed. In cases where the discretionary sanctions refer to articles we are changing it to pages. I am notifying the hundred or so editors involved in the various cases but had no plans to identify all the talk pages associated with all the cases.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing Declined Case Request on Gamaliel at Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
I noticed that the ArbCom case request on Gamaliel that had been declined was not listed on the Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Normally I just fix minor errors that I notice on WP, but looking through the changelog, I only saw ArbCom clerks and oversighter's/Arbitrators changing things on that page so I wasn't sure if we were allowed (although it didn't seem to be locked). Here is the diff of the removal from Arbitration/Requests/Case. --Obsidi (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, I pinged the clerk who handled it. Thanks for catching that.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was missed, now handled. Thanks for your diligence.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of The Arunachal Times
Hi, I noticed that you deleted The Arunachal Times, due to "pattern of copyvio". Can you comment on and close this AfD for the article? Thanks. Natg 19 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)