User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion Request for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad

Hey There ! Its is Honourable request that i report this article because it's against our religion...that's the fake news and totally false article that is written in it I request you to please remove this or change it... please it's our religion question. Abdullahijaz 9 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Abdullahijaz 9, I'm not sure why you are contacting me. There are ways to address such concerns, such as challenging the fake information on the article talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This matter is Google's error, and there's nothing we can do about what they decide to take from our website, even if it is portrayed in a misleading matter. Google's algorithms are so flawed that they show the caliph of the Amadiyya sect as the caliph of all of Islam. Acroterion (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Acroterion, Sorry, it didn't sink in that this is the Google fiasco. I now get it. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting updating of Women related laws in Pakistan with new text

Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I am not clear how I am involved. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Admin's Barnstar
for the thankless task of deleting all those sock articles. Onel5969 TT me 03:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I guess it is no longer thankless :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Slow as Christmas!!

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme 💬 📧 05:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you (those words sound automatic, and do not fully convey how welcome this is).--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott
 Happy holidays
Dear Sphilbrick,

For you and all your loved ones,

"Let there be mercy".


Wishing you health,
peace and happiness
this holiday season and
in the coming year.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Misspelled ping

I was trying to ping you at Wikipedia talk:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project, but miswrote your name and corrected it later. Did you still get the notification? ◅ Sebastian 13:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, No, but I will visit there now S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy del

Hi Sphilbrick. Hope you are well and had a good Christmas. You recently helped in the mass deletion of articles created by a banned user. This one has slipped through the net, which was my fault due to tagging it a bit later than the others. If you have a moment, please could you do the same on this one too. Thanks and all the best for 2021! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Got it.  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Tahaaleem Talk— is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tahaaleem Talk 13:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tahaaleem, Thank-you, and Happy New Year to you as well. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Empire AS, Thank-you! S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thanks  :) Empire AS Talk! 18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Women's T20 Challenge

are you able to restore the article Women's T20 Challenge? It was created by a blocked/banned user but other editors have contributed to it. And currently we don't have this parent article about the competition, but we do have articles for the specific seasons 2019 and 2020, which makes very little sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I have emailed you the contents of that article. It's my understanding that when we remove an article created by a banned or blocked user, the article can be re-created by another editor then takes responsibility for the contents. I haven't thought through how attribution to other contributors should be handled. I'll let you think about that. It might be as simple as dropping a note on the talk page acknowledging the other contributors. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks WP:NOATT says that no attribution is needed for "Material that has been deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki", which the original contents of this article is. So I think I'm good, will ad a note on the talkpage as well, that should more than suffice. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Joseph2302, Sounds good, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sphilbrick!

Happy New Year!

Sphilbrick,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank-you, and hope you have a great year as well. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Slumming

You've been slumming I notice :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

William M. Connolley, I wouldn't call it slumming. I find it mildly interesting that some of the participants, who jump to conclusions on too little evidence, think I'm an apologist for you. I defend you when you are unfairly attacked, but that seems to be misinterpreted. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You seemed to me to be one of the editors who opposed calling WUWT "denialist" etc. so the comments there are ignorant as well as rude. But William M. Connolley should be feeling complimented when reading that he doth bestride the narrow Wikipedia world like a colossus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Peter Gulutzan, You are correct I did oppose that, and failed to prevail. I see that our article incorrectly still makes that claim. I haven't looked at the New York Times site but I'm willing to bet that we don't characterize the New York Times as warmongering, or pro-terrorist, or irredeemably racist yet I'm sure we could find more articles in support of those positions than there are articles in WUWT that are in support of denialist positions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It is funny how completely lost they are... but then no-one from the outside understands wiki. Thanks for defending me at least from completely wild attacks. I'm curious what you think of the standard conversation: "X has done terrible things" "can you point me at any of those things" "why should I do your work for you?". It seems they have fixed ideas in their heads, but very little in the way of facts to back up their rock-hard opinions. You might (or quite possibly might not) find https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/into-the-bucket-of-jellied-eels/ and https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/ of interest William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed draft for your consideration

Hi, Sphilbrick. I've been waiting for three months at Talk:Foundation_Capital for an editor to review my proposed draft. The draft is only about 5 paragraphs long and cleans up a lot of unsourced overt promotion. After waiting three months, I finally put it in myself only to be reverted, because I am not a volunteer. Can I bug you to review the draft? Sangatfoundationcap (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sangatfoundationcap, sorry, I mostly specialize in copyright issues, and do not do reviews.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for NIDA (political party)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of NIDA (political party). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ætoms, Restored S Philbrick(Talk) 14:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

HELP

Its the person who created Chatapedia, Chatapedia is NOT a test page and is related to a topic.

Hell no please at 16/01/2021 (3.26pm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell no please (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hell no please: Talk page stalker btw. I would suggest you see WP:NOTABILITY. I'm afraid that it does not seem notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. When I looked up Chatapedia, it had 0 followers on any social media. That means that it is likely not notable. For the rules of whether something is notable enough to be included, I recommend you see WP:GNG. Thanks. Steve M (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hell no please, It is clearly something you made up. The content even claimed "I am the creator of this page and this is a test article!" it's not remotely ready for main space. Use the sandbox for something like that. I'm not even sure that it qualifies as an acceptable sandbox, but if it belongs anywhere it belongs in a sandbox. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hell no please, Please visit Wikipedia:Teahouse. Editors there can help you understand what is needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) – Hell no please, have you looked at any of the Welcome stuff, or attempts to help you, or warnings, that I and others have left on your Talk page? I am worried that you are not really understanding what Wikipedia is and how to edit it – things like your "Chatapedia" article do not help give the impression that you get it. Have you looked at the WP:TEAHOUSE? I do recommend it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

im going to wait now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell no please (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

🤔

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I responded via email.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicola De Maria

Hello! Would you consider restoring Nicola De Maria? It was G5'd as sock product. After seeing it listed at COIN, I vaguely remember checking it (he meets WP:NARTIST) and I think I also made a few edits to it. Thanks. Possibly (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, I tried looking at it so I could intelligently comment, was was unable to view it. Not sure why. I'll try again tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I temporarily restored it to check out your assertions. Most of the edits were made by the editor who has been banned. the most significant edit by someone other than the original editor is the use of refill to convert references, so while important it's not substantive addition to the content of the main article. That edit wasn't made by you.
I'll leave it undeleted for the moment to give you a chance to look to see if you can refresh your recollection, but I'm inclined to think that it ought to be deleted. If you would like me to email you the contents (or you can capture them if it hasn't been deleted by somebody else in the meantime) I think you are permitted to use that information to write your own article although it ought to be in your own words, as copyright exists even before deleted articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: thank you for the undeletion! I had a hunch about this one. A little sleuthing turned up multiple museum collections and an entry in Larousse, as well as the existing claim of being in the Venice Biennale. Notability is satisfied; is it good as is, or does it need to be proceduraly deleted for being sock product,then recreated? Re: User:Williamsdoritios, I am still scratching my head about that, as the art-related articles they made, while sloppy, were quite good. Possibly (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, I confess I'm not entirely sure what the community consensus is regarding next steps. I am sympathetic to those who have said that if an article is decently written, the subject of the article is notable, and the content would be a a benefit to our readership, it seems counterproductive to decide to delete it. On the other hand, I am equally sympathetic to the fact that we do have problem users, and if the user has violated policies to the extent that they receive a block or a ban, that means by definition, that the community has decided that we don't want contributions from that editor (until such time as they cure the problem). Stating that someone has been banned and cannot contribute in any way, and then decided to keep an article that they added in violation of the rules is essentially sending the message that we aren't serious when we say they are blocked or banned — we are simply encouraging them to become sock puppets. I think the latter argument is very strong and would prefer deletion and re-creation by a different editor, but I know some people feel strongly that this is not the right approach. As I said I don't know where the community consensus is that I'm not sure the best way to determine it. I know it's been discussed, and maybe a TPS can remind us where such a discussion has taken place. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, pinging Bri both as a courtesy, and for thoughts about the issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I don't think there is a consensus on it. I know that different admins treat it differently; I got hauled to ANI (under my previous username) for tagging G5-eligible articles a while back. The discussion does mention that G5 says "can" rather than "must" be deleted. Possibly (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Possibly, Thanks for linking to that ANI discussion. I may or may not have seen that specific discussion, but I notice a number of extremely experienced editors almost all of whom I have enormous respect for, on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, I have a lot of things on my plate so I'm going to take chicken way out and do nothingfurther. My preference would be to delete it and start over — I see that discussion was closed but while David Eppstein had a closing comment, I don't see evidence that a clear consensus has been reached. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Sphilbrick, Possibly, it happens that this is a topic I know something about. De Maria was the only one of the Transavanguardia artists we didn't have a page on, until this perfectly awful one was created. I'd been intending to do something about it (there are plenty of solid WP:RS to draw on, starting with GroveArt and Treccani), but was already in a dispute with the sock editor at Achille Bonito Oliva. For what it's worth, my suggestion would be to re-delete the sock version, so that either Possibly or I can make a clean start on a properly-sourced article. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: I've added about a half dozen sources. I also just found this, which links to more. Is there really any point in deleting this, when we can jut improve it as it is? It seems just punitive. Apologies if this is not the right place to discuss this. Shall we move to the article talk page? Whatever you decide re:deletion is fine with me, but please keep the many sources I tracked down in any future versions of the article. Possibly (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that the writing you removed were copied from a different wikipedia article itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_history_of_Armenia&oldid=1001615092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor of Emperors Armenia (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Emperor of Emperors Armenia, Please remember to identify the source of the material in your edit when copying within Wikipedia.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding a link to the source and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. It is not too late to add the attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Repairing_insufficient_attribution which explains how to do so.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Emperor of Emperors Armenia Just to affirm the advice of User:Sphilbrick. If you copy within Wikipedia, it still needs an attribution. Typically, I put in the edit summary the following form: "Text and references copied from Article to Receiver. See former article's history for a list of contributors." I also create an "Attribution" section on the articles' talk pages. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Normal Mapping

The contents you removed citing copyright of https://joshmayorga.net/blog/3d-effects/delve-into-normal-bump-mapping/ were originally added by me at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normal_mapping&oldid=726751166 in 2016 and copied by this website in 2017. So Please do not entertain any copyright claims by this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihits (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nihits, OK S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

  • New EBSCO collections now available
  • 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
  • Library Card input requested
  • Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Whenever I go to try to fix a copyvio, I always see "page fixed - Reviewed by Sphilbrick", so, that's nice.
JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I don't hold a candle to Diannaa, and of course, one doesn't get a lot of thanks from those whose copyvio's are reverted, so it's nice to know that someone notices.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Appeal to Reason (band)

Hi Sphilbrick, I just wanted to know what was going to happen to this page – thank you for moving this to the correct title of Appeal to Reason (album) following a mess created by another editor who made a cut and paste move. This is currently a redirect page, but as no band has ever existed with this name and is not a valid search term, it ought to be sent to RfD, but I see you've left a note that the redirect should be kept for historical attribution [1], so I'm holding off on this. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard3120, I have no idea - I just carried out a move request that was labeled as noncontroversial S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, no problem, just wanted to clear up your involvement in this – I'll speak to the people involved in the move then. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Poloz Mukuch

Dear Sphilbrick, many thanks for checking the Poloz Mukuch article I translated to English. I have rewritten the sentence from a copyrighted website and re-added the rest of the text that had no copyright issues. Hope it looks okay now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poloz_Mukuch Thanks again for checking. Best wishes. --Armatura (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Armatura, OK, thanks for rewriting. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_119&oldid=1073319822"