Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Balinese cat got nuked

Looks like you moved the redirect over the article or something; Balinese (cat) redirects to Balinese cat (desired result), but Balinese cat's content has been replaced by a redir to itself, and there's no edit history of the article itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My intention was to do nothing, because the request included a red link, but the edit history does not lie, I did something. I'll see if I can undo it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☺ OK, I restored Balinese cat. And Balinese (cat) is a redirect. What now should be done?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Lunch? :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You're on :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of route redistribution

Hi, I wish to contest the removal of route redistribution. You deleted it using criterion WP:A10 but, as I mentioned on the talk page, I think another deletion process would be more appropriate. According to policy, speedy deletion is reserved for “the most obvious cases.” I would be open to deletion using another process such as WP:PROD, which would give the community 5–7 days to expand on the topic using the sources that I identified, but I prefer that you please do not userfy the page unless you can please restore the relevant page history, which contains proper attribution for the material that I copied from the parent article. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I confess I did not look closely at the article Router (computing), but is it your contention that Route redistribution covers material that is both not in Router (computing) and doesn't belong there? That seems difficult to believe. If you think you can make the case, I'm happy to restore to a user space draft, but when you think it is ready, I want to see a discussion on the Router (computing) page concluding that the material is both important, and not appropriate on that page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it is merely my contention that speedy deletion should be used for more obvious cases; as you know, “Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.” Route redistribution is indeed a subtopic of router (computing), but because the “Router (computing)” article is concise (a good thing!) it should contain only a few sentences about this subtopic, as anything more would be disproportinately large compared with the length of the main article. This is an ideal case for proposed deletion rather than speedy deletion: see if an adequate stub develops within 5 days, and if not, then go ahead and delete it. Bwrs (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
We'll have to simply disagree. You seem to think Prod is like a seven day stay to see if it can be improved adequately in that time. That is a misunderstanding of Prod. But moot, see below.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the article unambiguously does not meet WP:A10 or any of the other criteria for speedy deletion, and WP:PROD is an acceptable compromise. Bwrs (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Userfication will preserve the editing history, although if the decision is that the meterial should be merged to Router (computing) a history merge, rather than copy paste should be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The only content that I put in route redistribution was placeholder text derived from router (computing). The reason that the history is important is that if route redistribution is restored as a new article (which is the goal of userfication), then my edit summary serves to properly attribute the source. I believe that the first paragraph of an article should explain the significance of the topic for general readers, and the lead of router served admirably for this purpose, so that is why I borrowed it. (If it turns out that the lead text that I copied from router (computing), actually originated outside of Wikipedia... and I do not know if that is the case... then I would agree to the speedy deletion of my article, along with the listing of router (computing) on WP:CV.) Bwrs (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced, but let's see what happens User:Bwrs/Route redistribution --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I have moved it to the new Draft: namespace, which I did not even know about until today. This will allow other users to collaborate, if they wish to. Bwrs (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Curious of your thoughts

Greetings Sphilbrick; hoping you are well! I've considered many discussions, in various forms, where criticisms of site administration have been levied. From various venues, be it admin recall to appeals of arbitration; even to the current discussion at the village pump, there resonates an underlying theme of "something missing". I have an idea of what that might be, and wanted to seek your opinion first.

In the most general sense, I believe this institution is missing an equivalent functioning arm as an Inspector General's office. Many woes would significantly moderate if one were in place; in my opinion. What are your thoughts regarding this; in general?—John Cline (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My very short answer is that this resonates with me. As is always the case, the devil is in the details. I have house, guests, just poking my nose in, will try to come back with more.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

re: Begging for a little help

Hey there. Not my usual line of work, but I left a message with a how-to link at the creator's talk page. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Who Speaks for Earth?

Hi Sphilbrick! Regarding the article Who Speaks for Earth? I think you made a mistake. Some weeks ago a bot removed some content of the article assuming some copyvio material from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szCsXyE5liI (a YouTube video description). However, that video was uploaded on March 16, 2012. And, that information already existed on Wikipedia on the article Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (see here: March 11, 2012): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmos:_A_Personal_Voyage&oldid=481461568). Therefore, the YouTube video description was not the source of that text but it was Wikipedia itself. Since some YouTube users take Wikipedia as a way to describe their videos easily, I think it was not a good idea to allow the bot to assume that YouTube descriptions can act as first sources. Best. :) --Kanon6996 (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kanon6996, I know very well that Wikipedia material gets scraped. However, I checked the history of Who Speaks for Earth? and see that it was created on 3 June 2014, which is after the youtube site date. I accept that Youtube may have copied from Wikipedia, but you cannot simply copy information from Wikipedia without attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, the page with instructions on how to do it properly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, for this case, the idea is to use this: Template:Copied in order to indicate the attribution, right? Thank you in advance for the answer.--Kanon6996 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's correct.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Roberts

I am concerned about Marilyn Roberts. I arrived at it via inclusion in a list of possible copyright issues, but I see broader issues.

I see that you saw the copyright concern and made some edits. In my opinion, those edits simply changed the text form copy past to WP:close paraphrase. If you are still working on it, go for it, but if you felt the problem has been addressed, I think it still needs work.

An additional problem is that the main source used for much of the structure and wording, is written by the subject. Such sources do not qualify as reliable sources, and should be used only in very limited circumstances. For example, such sources are often useful in determining the spelling of a person's name.

Please let me know if you are willing to undertake a substantial rewrite of the article. It occurs to me that this might be a good candidate for a collaboration with another editor who might also have interest in biography and/or English history. You might consider finding such a person at a relevant Wikiproject. Let me know if I can help find someone.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I understand your concerns and would be happy for you to help find someone else to edit Marilyn Roberts. With regard to copyright issues, I have emailed Marilyn Roberts, she has seen the article, and has no objections to the content (Marilyn Roberts's email available on request).--Madame Bonheur (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires a bit more cumbersome proof that she is ok. Please see WP:DONATETEXT. Basically, you need her to send an email to OTRS saying she release the source text under a free license, or otherwise it is illegal for us to resuse it (it doesn't matter whether she is ok, the LAW isn't). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I was taken aback by your response At the talk page of Piotrus. I have been reviewing dozens of articles with possible copyright violations. When I cam across the one you worked on, rather than simply remove all the problematic material or propose it for deletion, I thought I'd check to see if there were a better solution. I then:

  1. contacted you to confirm you were still actively editing
  2. reviewed the lists of Wikiprojects to find one that might have editors interested in helping.
  3. Identified an editor at the project with interest in British history. Unfortunately, i found out she is recently deceased.
  4. Chose another prolific editor who I hoped would help
  5. Wrote out a request for help and some background
  6. Contacted the editor to see if it would work out
  7. Unfortunately that editor has declined to help directly.
  8. I was also prepared to help you with the text permission, as I am familiar with the processes

However, your response came across as if I'm not willing to do much. So, I'll stop trying. The next step is up to you. Please address some of the problems. If not, I'll look into which deletion process is appropriate. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I am mortified that this has gotten out of hand and apologize if I came across as rude or uncooperative. I understand that you have a difficult job to do, but try to see things from my point of view. I have been editing Wikipedia for around eighteen months with care and the best of intentions and have always been treated with respect and courtesy by other editors. Out of the blue I'm accused of copyright violation and told that the person being written about, her books and her own website were not appropriate sources for her areas of interest, expertise and educational qualifications, nor was the book review written by an independant author. Your comments came across as condescending and somewhat aggressive, and you neglected to tell me, until now, that you were attempting to find another editor to help. I will attempt to re-write the article and hope it won't be necessary to delete it. I have decided not to continue editing Wikipedia and wish you luck with your efforts in the future.
I'm sorry it got out of hand, and hope you will reconsider your decision to stop editing. There is a lot to do, and you have clear talents. The timing was unfortunate - I had stumbled across an editor with over 90,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, many of which have problems, which will require hundreds of hours of volunteer time to fix. However, while that person should have known about our copyright policy, I need to remember that copyright policy is complicated, and often not obvious. For example, you reached out to someone to make sure you could use her words, and therefore it comes as a surprise that this is not enough. I did try to reach out and find someone who could help, and I am disappointed the first two candidates did not work out. You can, of course, work on it yourself, but I had hoped I could find an experienced editor with interest in the subject matter. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of Sarkal Bakkot

You recently deleted Sarkal Bakkot, an article about a place as Unambiguous copyright infringement. Would you care to explain this? Your summary also says See talk for explanation, but you deleted the talkpage as well.--Auric talk 02:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the message I left on the talk page:

This article was created 20 March 2011, but matches material at this site, which was present on 13 March 2011. No suitable license, so I am deleting the article.

--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Clerk Trainee

Hello, I am Mmddyy28 and I am interested in becoming a ArbCom Clerk Trainee. I have been on Wikipedia for a little while and am currently active in working on an adoption course set to be completed the week of July 20. I am interested in becoming a trainee because the tasks they do and the process of training interests me. Would you consider me? Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 18:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mmddyy28 I'm not in a position to make that determination myself. I'm still new to the process. Knowing nothing about you other than that you have about 300 edits in a couple months, I would think more experience would be needed. I do not even know if there are minimum requirements, but my guess is that most clerks have edit counts in the thousands, and experience measure in years not months. Looking at the Appointment process, I see it mention contacting a current clerk, which you have done. However, having been in this position for only a few months myself, I suggest checking with one of the others, who might give you a more specific answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 19:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's not too personal, could you give me a little background on how you became a clerk yourself? -- Mmddyy28 (Contact Me Here) 19:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Happy to. I have long term interest in participating on ArbCom (which is clear evidence of a lapse of good judgement). However, I felt that I should have a better understanding of ArbCom processes before running for the position., While I am quite aware that one cannot fully appreciate the responsibilities without actually doing them (because some of the functions are understandably not public) I wanted to do what I could. I have been following a few cases for a few years, but I thought that being a clerk would force myself to follow more cases, more closely, and gain a better appreciation for the task. I should emphasize that the clerk position is not automatically an interim step to the committee, some members of ArbCom have previously served as clerks, many have not, and some who served as clerks have no interest in serving on ArbCom. In my specific case, that is my motivation, but my reasons may differ from those of others. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming

I wonder if there is some alternative solution to this. The dog breed is called Dalmatian, not Dalmatian dog. Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Hafspajen (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page. I made the move, thinking it was uncontroversial. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, it could have ramifications beyond that one article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The ramifications could affect hundreds of articles. And Sphilbrick was following what has been a longstanding consensus over in the horse breeds task force area. On this one, Hafspajen, I most respectfully disagree with you, see my talk or Sagacious Phil's. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Still confused so am trying a sidebar

Hi, thanks for your comments at GW. I think I'm still confused, and thought it might make sense to stop by here for a sidebar, if that's ok with you. Here's my confusion - I asked if the article now encompasses the entire subject, or just a component? In your answer, I keep reading the words as saying "sorta both" and am hoping you'll not be offended if I ask again, because I think its important.

What I think you said is summarized like this

  • Yes, x=y (as in one title means the same thing as the other)
  • If we change from article title x to article title y, we'd bring an enormous amount of work upon ourselves

I apologize that I can't get my brain around that. Either x=y or it does not seems to me. Would you mind taking another pass at the question, please? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to formulate my thoughts, will do so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, will be interested in result. Meanwhile, I've been organizing a history of the changing "About" statements at the top of the two articles as a means of assessing past consensus. Only 1/3 done though. You're invited to visit the bottom section of my sandbox (work in progress) if you think that will help your own thought process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

When I think about the two terms:

  • Global warming
  • Climate change

I think about Venn diagrams, with a small twist. The twist is that canonical Venn diagrams have sharply defined borders. Given a plane, a circle, and a point on the plane, the point is either in the circle or not, with no question. What I need are Venn diagrams with very fuzzy borders. Some points are clearly inside the circle, some are clearly outside, but a large number of points are in the fuzzy boundary, one interpretation of which is that some people see the point as inside, and others see it as outside. However, it is fuzzier than that, as a single person might struggle with whether the point is inside the circle or not.

Now let's pretend that we have a set of points we wish to discuss in an article, and we are trying to determine which of two circles is the correct circle containing the points. We have two candidates, and some problems.

The first problem is that the two circles are almost on top of each other. Many points are clearly inside both, many points are clearly outside both, but many points lie on one or the other fuzzy boundary.

The second problem is that neither circle includes all the topics we think should be discussed and excludes those topics we think should be excluded, that is, both are imperfect representations of what we think are the right set of points.

The third problem is that not all observers even agree on the set of points.

For example, ocean acidification. It isn't technically global warming, that is it isn't a manifestation of a rising temperature, nor even the direct result of a rising temperature Indeed, a warmer ocean out-gasses, which reduces acidification. It is equally clear that it isn't a climate change nor a direct result of climate change. So why on earth is the subject covered by the IPCC and others involved in the debate? Because it is a consequence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which then goes into the oceans, thus is related. I don't have any problems with discussion of this topic in an article about either global warming or climate change, but I accept it, not because the title implies it, but because the title is a placeholder for a not-fully-defined subject which does include acidification.

Sea level change is another problematic topic. Part of sea level change arises from anthropogenic warming, directly and indirectly. Part arises from our long-term recovery from the ice age, including Isostatic rebound. Experts disagree on the relative contributions of each. Which means it isn't squarely in the global warming circle, but I understand why it is discussed. It is even less obvious that it belongs in an article called climate change. It isn't really climate. That's one small reason why I think global warming is the better term.

While sea level change is a topic which I think better fits in a global warning article than a climate change article, there are examples going the other way. Thermohaline circulation is a topic which fits squarely in a climate change article, but awkwardly in a global warming article. Biodiversity issues fit nicely into a climate change article, but are a bit of a stretch in a global warming article.

However, these three things are at the border. Most topics in our existing article belong in whether the title is global warming or climate change. If the subject matter were very clearly better suited to one title or the other, it would make sense to choose that title.However, as I have casually tried to demonstrate, neither title is perfect, which alone would be an argument for status quo. To the extent that there are some differences, I see a slight edge to the current title.

And finally, if we were to adopt a different title, I think new editors would be asking about inclusion of topics which clearly belong in that new title, but aren't adequately covered. I don't think we could defined the argument that those topics are excluded because the title used to be global warming ans we changed the title, but we don;t want to change the content.

So yes, I actually think that x is approximately equal to y, but if we go with y, we need to go with y, and that implies changes. It isn't badly broken, I'm not in favor of picking a different and also imperfect title. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

wait, nevermind. Bad joke deleted. I was thinking geometry instead of set theory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually spent a moment wondering if I needed to address the issue you mentioned and deleted, but came to the same conclusion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for a careful and time-invested response. Not sure what I'll do next, but I'll ping you if I make specific reference to our sidebar. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if I could persuade you to check out a couple Request Edits I have in the queue here and here. Both have had some discussion/vetting by other editors. If you feel we should wait longer or discuss more, that's also A-ok. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Will check them out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sphillbrick. Just a friendly ping that the Request Edit here for McKinsey & Company is still open. It's been almost a month now, so I'm sort of doing my rounds looking for someone to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I addressed one, and meant to come back for the other. Will look at soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Patrick Sinclair

You appear to have deleted the deletion nomination page instead of the file. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ludwig Mathes

You deleted Ludwig Mathes earlier. Could you also delete the Talk:Ludwig Mathes associated talk page, please? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry I missed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. Thanks ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Samuel Walker (soldier)

Hi Sphilbrick,
Re. the Samuel Walker (soldier) page you prodded, the page creator did this edit removing the prod, but as far as I can tell made no changes to the text themself regarding your concern, though others have changed it since. Just FYI. --220 of Borg 21:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, will look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Virtual Card Numbers

Yes I did instigate the email as laid down with the Wikipedia copyright sections, and then posted appropriate cross references on the article itself. Maybe I did not do this correctly, but certainly it has been done as owner of the copyright would very much like this information to be available on Wikipedia. Are you able to reinstate the page so I can place it into my sandbox until this is resolved ? Thanks

Responded 4 sections above.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronald Shiffman

Oops! Didn't mean to tread on your toes. Please feel perfectly free to revert if you think I have misjudged there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now, trying to refresh my recollection of what happened.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Justlettersandnumbers, I haven't fully reconstructed my thought process. I must have come across the article while looking at SCV, but it looks like I go distracted by the over-use of bold, fixed those problems, and forgot why I was there. I may simply have been interrupted, I see that I left no results at SCV. I do see some efforts to address the copy paste issue, but at first glance, it may sill be a close paraphrase. I was away yesterday, and still trying to catch up, will try to look at it later, but your actions seem warranted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sporting Kansas City Primary.PNG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sporting Kansas City Primary.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) 23:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Stefan2 It seems to be used in Sporting Kansas City. (FYI, logging off now, and not back on for 24-72 hours depending on unknown factors.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My bad, I see someone created an svg. (If that permitted?, creating an svg of a copyrighted image seems like a bad idea) The png can be deleted, but I don't like to delete while I am logging off, so someone else can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct: the article uses a different image in a different file format. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Kingdom of Catan?

Dear Sir,

I request the information in regards to the Deletion of the Kingdom of Catan page? If there is something I did wrong please let me know.

Kind Regards,

Jamesatcatan (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It was identified as a hoax, and I saw nothing that convinced me otherwise. You need references in reliable sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe we may be looking at a CIR issue here. John from Idegon (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Additional...There has been an article titled Republic of Catan CSD'd three times in the past year and he has recreated the article you deleted under that title in a sandbox of his abandoned username by undoing the edit that redirected it to the title you deleted. (here) Time for the salt shaker? John from Idegon (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And still more...It appears we have some socking too. Seems very strage that this should occur right in this same timeframe. John from Idegon (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If it appears again, I'd support salting.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_47&oldid=1143322637"