User talk:Sphilbrick

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

Duck

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Did you know that my homage to an editor we like appeared on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC

You're invited!

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Evolva Wikipedia Page

Hi, I am reaching out to you and Widefox in regards to the recently deleted Wikipedia page Evolva Holding. Would you have a moment to give input on a collection of secondary third-party verifiable sources for the intent of re-qualifying Evolva for a stub-class Wikipedia article? My disclosure of potential conflict of interest (not an employee of Evolva) is intended to foster goodwill in my collaboration with you. OK with reviewing the secondary source links and/or sandbox? Look forward to your favorable response. Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in over my head at the moment, I'll try early next week.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten to this yet, not sure when I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know when you are able to. Thank you. Presto808 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

kaurareg

Hi, sorry about this, I see it's at Kaurareg people (temp), I'd been copy-pasting the rationale on similar db-moves and missed changing the name on that one :-O. Haste makes waste, didn't realize that had happened.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling,Skookum1 :) Please let me know where is should be. Kaurareg people? --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops looks like my guess is backwards - I guess it should be to Kaurareg?

Ping Skookum1--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping Skookum1 again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There was also some controversy about your redirects, has that been resolved? Can you point me to it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I seen this just now. I've moved it to Kaurareg as per your original move. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I guessed, but wanted to be sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the issue has not been resolved, and several editors at ANI have requested that Skookum stop making move requests. One of the problems you'll note is that Skookum thinks TWODABS means that we shouldn't have dab pages with only two links, though several admins have explained to him that it doesn't mean that at all. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stop processing them, although we ought to do something about those in progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I started removing the tags, per the instructions in the tags, but Skookum started to edit war over them. I meant to warn him and then revert him, but I posted the warning on the wrong page, so when he reverted me again, I asked him to revert himself. Based on his history, I suspect there's no way he's going to do that (I was evidently right: [1]), and bringing him to ANI over it is going to be a waste of a lot of people's time, so would you mind removing the tags? — kwami (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yellow pigs and 17

I was first introduced to Yellow Pigs by a friend/mentor George Glauberman. He commented to me at the time he would never forget the number of my doorbell number because it was 17, and he said "A prominent probabilist once told me 17 is the only truly random number." Of course George has a very dry sense of humour and (I think) he loves the fact that the only truly random number is unique. Well life conspired to move within the same apartment complex several times, and on the few occasions he visited me, I had a different doorbell number each time. Perhaps 17 is the only truly random number...

Anyways, I am sharing this story with you because I really like your userbox. Thenub314 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How extremely coincidental,Thenub314. A few minutes ago, I decided to contribute to another Wiki, and need to create a user name. I thought a bit and chose Yellow Pig. I've been editing as Yellow Pig even while you were writing this. My street address is 17. I also had a conversation with someone this morning in which I analogized the argument to a proof I once developed to prove that 17 is the only random number. The proof is lame and not worth the retelling, but only mentioned because both Yellow Pig and 17 have been on my mind this morning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ohh... playing the field on WP! I warn you she is a cruel mistress. That is pretty funny. I guess random events to tend to cluster. Anyways, have fun. Thenub314 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you be at YP Day this summer? (HCSSiM '78 and '79). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

July 17? I did not plan to, but maybe I should look into it. I met Kelly and Spivak in 1968, I believe, in Durham (UNH) rather than Amherst.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably lost in the process

You archived a discussion that I'd just posted a couple of questions in. I hadn't noticed that a few hours before Newyorkbrad said the discussion could be closed and archived, but maybe you or NYB can answer my questions?

I asked Scalhotrod if he would redact his accusations about me, and his answer [2] makes me wonder 1. Is it poor form to make such a request? and 2. Is it OK to redact something one says in an ArbCom discussion?

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a process, will finish, alert NYB, and check into other question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Groupiful

I am requesting that you reconsider the deletion of the Groupiful page. The website is notable as it was the subject of three referenced articles by independent online publications (Lifehacker, Hongkiat.com, etc.). In addition, the article was written from a neutral perspective. The level of detail regarding the features was described by the independent sources and is not unlike a number of other Wiki articles. Finally, in accordance with Speedy Deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), as the subject is notable, any non-neutral language should have been replaced by neutral language and not deleted. Thanks! Jonstrykes (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked for reconsideration and for it to be userfied. Those are different things. I userfied.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I've rewritten and submitted for review. Thanks for your help. Jonstrykes (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to review the revised article? User:Jonstrykes/Groupiful Jonstrykes (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, too much on my plate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

I'm happy to see you haven't given up on the Request Edit queue. If you're interested, I'm also working on the main McKinsey & Company article here. The page started out as a borderline attack piece with some promotion sprinkled in, but it's starting to look like an encyclopedic article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM I haven't already I confess it is still a bit daunting. I would like you to take a look at Talk:Gumstix#requestedit. I'm trying something potentially interesting. It started off well, has stalled, but I sill have hope. One could characterize it as a manual version of pending changes. Rather than try to figure out what they wanted, or push them to make an exact copy of the edit, I asked them to make an edit, which I would then review.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A few comments I am going to write below as I come up with them

• One of the things I would like to see in a Request Edit wizard is to advise the submitter AGAINST adding disclosures to their request. Long-winded disclosures tend to add a lot of extra text to read, distracts from focusing on the content and gives the submitter the impression that it was because of the personal information they disclosed that their edits were rejected. This is counter to our core principles and the template itself is enough of a disclosure.
• The excessive use of primary sources from the company website (all three of his sources were from the company website) is a clear sign that the editor is not going to manage their COI well. Citing the company website is an easy way to get Wikipedia to repeat company messaging, etc. That doesn't mean we should ABF, but that COI is discouraged for this reason. They will be frustrated by the outcome of their collaboration here.
• Like with AfC, most Request Edits will need to be rejected and the submitter will be disappointed by this. Preventing the edits is as important of a role for Request Edits as allowing good ones.
• It is very hard for one editor to explain an edit to another. A wizard can also help with this be creating a form where reviewers would get familiar with the format, though there may be a couple different formats for re-writes, versus corrections, etc.
• I prefer to use Request Edit | G in a lot of cases, to "approve" the edit, except in controversial or sensitive areas.

CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick. Here is an example of how I use Request Edit | G to suggest a COI editor go ahead and make the non-controversial edits they have proposed, which are a clear and obvious improvement. I have not vetted each citation thoroughly, but I presume any mistakes they make are similar to the mistakes any editor makes and ultimately in-consequential. All I checked it for was censorship, advertising, copyright, primary sources, etc. like we would at AfC. Took less than 30 seconds, while making each edit myself would take several minutes. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the G option. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Green iguana

Hi, thanks for facilitating this page move from Green Iguana at 19:07, 20 May 2014. So far as I can tell though the article has now disappeared, and all we have is a circular redirect at Green iguana. Cheers! Spicemix (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Spicemix, I think I fixed it, please check.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Present and correct. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Move over redirect

Hi Sphilbrick. You seem to be getting the lion's share of these birdy G6s. Is there any reason why move over redirect is restricted to admins rather than being a user right that could be requested? I don't have sights set on adminship, but may well continue with the birdy stuff from time to time, and could save admins some effort if a user right were available. Is there a proper place to suggest such a thing, or would it be a waste of time? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, This may be longer than you expected, and not the answer you wanted, but here goes:

I trust you understand, but it is worth mentioning for clarity, that it isn't so much the mover over redirect that requires an admin, it is that the action requires the deletion of a page, and that is currently limited to admins (and maybe a tiny few others). I'm not a developer, but I work with enough to guess that a bespoke user right which includes the ability to delete, would not be easy to create without delivering the universal ability to delete. (I was going to go on a side topic about the distinction between deleting material and viewing already deleted material, but it would be a diversion, so I won't).

I am generally a fan of considering unbundling in some cases. but this example isn't working for me. I assume that the community has revisited the convention about capitalization, so there will be more of these coming. However, it is a medium sized slug of articles, and once done, there might not be another similar instance for some time. Move over redirects come up on occasion, but except for this instance, aren't quite common enough to justify a user right.

I do have another suggestion, which might fit in with the making_life_easier_for_admins _is_always_appreciated. I like handing these requests. When I see a few, I look carefully at one, to make sure the nominator seems to know what they are doing, and then if I see others from the same nominator, I can do them with less scrutiny. If you were to identify a time that you planned on working on a bunch of them, let me know in advance, and nominated them more or less at the same time, I could knock them off fairly quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and accurate answer. In light of it, I won't push for the creation of a user right. (I do understand the difference between deleting and viewing deleted material. Perhaps that's the reason why we ordinary mortals can move over redirects that have never been edited since creation, but not once they have been edited. Some redirect pages, after all, were once articles.)

Thanks for offering to expedite mine, but not to worry. I work slowly, because I always copy edit as well as just downcasing. I just can't help myself! In the group I'm doing at present, most articles can be moved, and when I have to G6 one I just note it in the to-do list on move on, to return later. It's an easy way to work and means I don't hit the admin corps with dozens at a time. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at some of your work, and realize my suggestion doesn't work quite as well as I thought. I see that you work through some of the articles, some of which can be moved without an admin. I was hoping you identify a slug all at once requiring an admin. That may not be the case. BTW, nice work. I don't qualify as a birder, but I have friends that are, and some of my most rewarding OTRS work has been handling permission for bird photos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, I think only around a quarter of the articles I've looked at have redirects that can't be moved over. Most of those that can't are because someone edited them to add a redirect to other caps tag. Hey ho! :-) --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NASROLLAH MOGHTADER MOJDEHI deleted as a standard G13 or for some other reason? I ask because someone is requesting it be restored at WP:REFUND and you didn't leave a deletion reason. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy, standard G13, hadn't been edited in over a year. It had been declined due to sources and tone, but if someone wants to work on it, I'd say go ahead and restore. Sorry about lack of deletion reason, it is usually automatic, and I must have missed that this one didn't appear. (I now see it had a yellow bar, not green, which may explain the lack of reason.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Bodlondeb Woods

I'm surprised that you deleted Bodlondeb Woods; did you not search Wikipedia for references or links such as List of local nature reserves in Wales? You will see at the bottom of this page that the woods are registered and kept by Countryside Council for Wales, a non-profit government body, now known as Natural Resource Wales. The (new user) also included as references a link to ([http://www.conwy.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=501&doc=1759&Language=1 the local council's website). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 No, I did not. Three sentences about a small wooded area with zero indication of why it might be notable. If not expanded, I think it should be deleted. I hope you will improve it, so it survives.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To some people starting out on Wikipedia three sentences is a lot! They are very proud of having published something which is in their eyes a good piece of work. The "indication" of its notability was in the article: the fact that it is registered as a 'local nature reserve'. Please be positive with new editors and show them that Wikipedia nourishes and celebrates their contributions, however small. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but registered as a 'local nature reserve' doesn't sound very notable. I happen to be on the board of a local land conservatory, which means I am probalby more symathetic to inlcusion than the average editor. We have 67 properties, most of which are larger than Bodlondeb Woods, and are registered. I can't imagine that we would add a Wikipedia entry about each of the 67 properties. Maybe the entire conservatory would qualify, but it would be a close call. If you were to add the link, it would help, but despite the fact that I lean to the inclusionist side of the spectrum, I don't think it belongs as is.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

see what I mean?

Not only is he reverting to a TWODAB, he's also now using a different apostrophe for no reason at all; perhaps to avoid a 3RR methinks...he accuses me of an edit war he's starting...... yes, there's a controversy but it's not about the policies and guidelines that should be being enforced, it's about that one editor who continues to conduct a campaign of illogic and games with titles and seems to relish the confrontation and threatens me with ANIs he should be the subject of. I'm preparing a (very large) AE on his activities, which I've outlined for you on my page; he's used the special-apostrophe namegame before in titles like Nisga'a to get around reverts and redirects; while never working on the actual articles. He cited "per TWODABS" in the course of reverting to a TWODABS page, even though TWODABS says explicitly two-item disambiguation pages should be replaced by a hatnote. Controversy? No, idiocy mixed with profound arrogance and arrogation; I tire of this stupid game and will go back to building and improving articles as is my usual wont; that all this began because I was confronted with undiscussed name-changes on titles/links I use all the time was compounded by the "FOO people" problem re "the Squamish affair"...which I will also be sending to ARBCOM, as it's clear to me now that the character assassination milieu of ANI is not the place for discussions of content, policy and reality.Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to comment on the willful misreading of TWODABS, but a note on the apostrophe: That is evidently how WP represents the apostrophe in the article name, since all I did was substitute PAGENAME. But of course it must be part of some nefarious plan ... — kwami (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the nice things about being a volunteer is that you get to decide what you want to work on. On occasion, I try to look into disputes to see if I can understand the root cause, and offer some constructive input. However, I'm choosing not to get involved in this dispute at this time. My narrow point is that G6 is for uncontroversial moves, so if there is controversy, even if unwarranted, it needs to be resolved first, if you wish to use G6.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. To Sphilbrick, for his diligence and tirelessness as an arbitration clerk. Thank you for your work yesterday, on the clerks' mailing list, and for all your other effort in the role. AGK [•] 11:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot. I confess, I was half worried that you asked a question which was structured as a yes/no question, and I didn't answer it that way, so I'm happy to hear that it was well-received. I suppose it's par for the course when you sign up for the Arb Committee that nothing has a simple answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

I now have us caught up from December 2013 up to February 2014, which still means we have many Request Edits that are three months old (down from 6). I declined almost all of them, so any hour now, some of them will come to my Talk page huffing and puffing. I did about 20 of them in 1 hour and 40 minutes (5 minutes each). I don't think they are unreasonably time-consuming. At least not if you are willing to do a mediocre job, and we should all embrace mediocrity as better than nothing or better than crap.

One article I need to circle back to is Asia World. All the cites for the controversy in the Business Practices section are broken links and I need to get my hands on them somehow. CorporateM (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, thanks for doing all that. I know what you are talking about re getting some pings from people. Sometimes, I decide to reduce the backlog at OTRS, and knock of a few dozen requests. I feel good about the backlog reduction, but that inevitably means I will get some responses over the next few days, when I may or may not be in a mood to tackle them.

I have a couple thoughts on how to start improving our responses in this area. One I may have hinted about before. I notice that if you handle a request, it is not trivial for anyone else to see who is handling the requests. A handled request usually has a template, which shows up in a category, but those are not organized in any useful way (AFAICT). I prefer the model at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where you can see who addresses an issue, how it was addressed, and get a sense of who the regulars are. I can go into more detail, but I'd like some feedback from you to see what you think. If nothing else, it would make it easier to identify whether there are regulars, and then who to contact on additional ideas.

My second idea is to cage {{Admin dashboard}} so that the Requested edits field turns red when the backlog is too high. I'd start by setting the bar at 75, to give us an attainable goal, then drop it to 50 at some later time. I know this little trick works on me; when I see the red bar for CSD G10 (which goes off when the count exceeds zero) or the CSD backlog, which turns red at 100 items, I try to turn my attention to it. It's a small thing, but I suspect some don't check it at all, and the red bar might help. Doesn't seem like it could hurt.

Longer term, I'd like to look into organizing a backlog drive, but at the moment, I wouldn't know who to canvass (other than you).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those all sound like good ideas. The general principle being that there is a need for more management tools. We still don't get a lot of request edits, at least not in comparison to AfC or new page patrol, but I think we want more so that we can prevent/reduce poor COI edits that may be done un-intentionally. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I would like to know who else is working on the Request Edit queue as well, so I can figure out who to ping for my own Request Edits. It's really hard to find editors that won't just make comments, but will actually make edits. CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

First the good news.

I looked at some of the completed requests, those whose article name started with "A", and identified the following respondents:

partial list
Ukexpat Gigs Stalwart111 Silver seren FeralOink CorporateM RudolfRed Vacation9 Sam Sailor 78.105.236.140 Old Moonraker Bzuk Deor Diannaa Qwyrxian Celuici Sphilbrick Bobrayner Wilipino

There are more than I would have guessed. I note that only a couple are admins. As I think I have made clear, I do not view this task as an admin only task (although I prefer than new editors get more experience first). I mention this because of my suggestion to modify the admin toolbar. If the bulk of those working on these requests are not admins, that modification won't get at the audience. On the other hand, maybe it will bring in more admins.

On a negative note, one of the contributors has under 30 edits, and by byte count, over 99% of the edits are responses to edit requests. I did not look at the edit, but it raises a red flag for me.

I've reached out to Moonriddengirl to see who designed the Copyright Problems page, as a first step to considering it as a model. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@ CorporateM Following up here, so as not to bore MRG - I have more familiarity with CP, so that was my first thought as a model. That looks like a dead end, so perhaps AFC is a better model. Before I take the next step, I want to think about what I want to accomplish, as there are multiple goals.

Hey why don't we work on something right now and see how far we can get until we need a technical expert. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, isn't this actually a good starting point already? Or were you looking for something different entirely CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to change the graphic, which is the AFC logo, but that's a great start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've started contributing to the Talk page--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey do you do you have any interest in taking over the Request Edit Wizard? Like moving into your userspace and seeing it forward? Given the COI stuff, I would consider it a good thing if I wasn't involved. CorporateM (Talk) 05:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That may make sense, but I'm somewhat over-committed at the moment, let's come back to this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

T3

• Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation/meta/color
• Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)/meta/color

please fix the transclusions to these templates, or restore them, since you deleted them. 107.4.39.136 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)I restored them, but they are redundant, so someone should replace them with the improved version. Can you do that, so they can be deleted?

I restored them, but they are redundant, so someone should replace them with the improved version. Can you do that, so they can be deleted?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

given that the article name is Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation, I would suggest moving Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation/meta/color to Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation/meta/color, and keeping the non-endash version as a redirect. 2601:0:200:62A:20E:C6FF:FE88:F031 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"apparently the controversy has not yet been resolved"

closing without reading, sorry

Indeed so, but it's a one-man controversy, and his habit of creating TWODAB pages to replace PRIMARYTOPIC redirects is an old part of his game; and he's even claimed that TWODAB mandates TWODAB pages instead of the explicit opposite. The only controversy is the one he keeps going by such actions; which are always against guidelines and other naming policies than his own pet theory. My contention is that redirects to primary topic are inherently deletable and reversion to the original, undisambiguated title is not controversial at all. Only one very obstinate editor who created 95% of these, and it seems several hundred TWO pages, including the one he just made now, very controversially and as-always shamelessly, is what is "controversial". TITLE/CONCISENESS/PRECISION, PRIMARYTOPIC and NCDAB are not "controversial". As an example of his refusal to acknowledge or even investigate reality, the view stats for "Bilibil people" were 117 this month, for "Bilibil language" there were only 41. In the last 90 days, there were 481 for "Bilibil people" and there were only 134 for "Bilibil language". He's argued until he's blue in the face that "language and people are equally primary topic" in his ongoing insistence that "people" articles must be disambiguated, but has yet to show any evidence for that, or cite where that claim comes from. I'm not going to take the time to review all the incoming links, but established patterns with this "problem" overwhelmingly show that the people articles are what most incoming links are about; with maybe government and communities ahead of language in dab-choice options, when they exist. Note the lack of "fix" to the lede, which is still Bil bil in the wake of his move from "Bil Bil language", which is typical; the further question goes "are the people named "Bilibil" and the language named "Bil Bil"?" Perhaps, not my area, but I'm way too familiar with his name games e.g. re Parnkalla where the language and people titles had separate spellings and, I'm guessing, separate pronunciations, which came up in dispute with @JHunterJ: on the talkpage debate at WP:NCL. Controversy? Well, policy and mainstream guidelines should not be controversial, nor should actions applying them be considered so nor should RMs be needed to deal with redirects-to-target and TWODAB pages; guidelines and policies about that have been discussed and well-established for a long time; how many TWODAB RMs will be necessary to fix all his creations? I've already learned that bulk RMs, even all of the same kind and on the same issue/guideline/policy are unwelcome and will be shut down, and individual RMs were indicated as the way to deal with things. For doing that I have been accused and vilified for a "frenzy" of moves.....but nobody said "boo" about his massive "frenzy" of moves and TWODAB-makings.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) The incoming links template added to Kavango and others today are because of the TWO/three dab pages having been created; the vast bulk of those links will be to the "people" article, if precedent applies here as it has so obviously in scores of similar cases.Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I have not examined your arguments in any detail. You may be right, you may be wring, it may not even be a case of right or wrong but how a community chooses a convention. What I am sure of is that I have a bad habit of over-committing. I have a number of things I am working on, and a number of things I want to work on. I try to spend some time each day on CSD, but when I see a CSD G6, which is supposed to be uncontroversial, I am happy because it is an easy one to handle. When I find it is not uncontroversial, well, it would be nice if I could take the time to sort through the issue and resolve the controversy, but only at the cost of dropping something else. That would be unfair to other areas where I have made a commitment. You seem to be trying to explain to me why your position is correct. My repose isn't that you are wrong, but that I am not listening. There must be a venue to resolve it, but I am quite sure it is not my talk page. Sorry, I feel bad for writing this, as I like to try to be helpful whenever I can, but I am not planning to spend any more time on this issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I see, as too many editors do, you did not bother reading the background to the so-called "controversy". Whatever, the titles you removed the db-move template from were converted immediately into TWODAB pages, upon which I add {{only-two-dabs}} so that they could be reviewed for primary topic and possible expansion past two dabs. He tried removing all of those, I reinstated them, so he added {{two-dabs}} which states that there is no primary topic; upon my removal of those, he re-removed {tl|only-two-dabs}}, claiming *I* have to disprove what he has yet to prove - that languages are parallel primary topics to the people who speak them and who the language is named for/by. A combination of OCD and inanity and perverse hypocrisy, threatening me with an ANI if I continue to revert his edit-war edits..... ranting about guidelines while having a history of ignoring and overriding major ones. I feel like Sisyphus.... if people so concerned about guidelines then reference to TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC should be made; and TWODABS pages should be dealt with accordingly....there's simply too many out there he's created to address all of them with the necessary templates; and he'll remove them anyway. I'm bored of the b.s. If people like you didn't call something in line with TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC "controversial" then those db-moves would have gone through, and he wouldn't be able to waste yet more time and energy playing his games with two dabs and template-warring. For Kwami alone I may say f**k it to Wikipedia.....which really is what he wants, so there's nobody around to call him on his b******t.Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, as too many editors do, you did not bother reading the background. You are correct, as I explained. This is the wrong forum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo Question

Hi, I was wondering if I could ask your help with something? I had gotten a picture submitted and authorized for use a while ago (October 2012) and just recently the photo was deleted for a copyright violation. I can't find out what the violation was and when I emailed the user who deleted they asked me to email permissions to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS but I think this was already done when I submitted the authorization originally but I send the permissions to permissions-en@wikimedia.org not commons. Someone moved the photo to commons after the permissions were sent so I'm not sure how the permissions transfer.

The photo was "File:Mohit_Malhotra.jpg" and the ticket was Ticket#2012101110001641. Any help or input you could provide would be great. I can get another picture submitted but I don't want it to get deleted again since I don't know what the issue was. I'm wondering if this was a transfer to commons issue. (Raasta123 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Looking into it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Watch this space --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Raasta123, it is now resolved, the deleting admin has restored. Sorry about that, but all fixed now.(Not that you care, but there was an exceedingly tiny technical issue which I explained in a note in the OTRS file, but the deleting admin is not an OTRS agent, so did not see it.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! That was fast :-) I figured it was something small but I didn't know how to get it resolved. You rock! (Raasta123 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Userfy request

Hello Sphilbrick, could you please userfy Thailand national under–14 football team to my User space as I would like to check something before requesting a U1. Thanks a lot. JMHamo (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

JMHamo  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	That speedy deletion of those harassment talk pages was really fast- good job! Lixxx235 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (I just explained to someone else that when I saw the red bar on the admin dashboard, I tried to respond quickly. I was actually busy doing something else, but I saw the red bar, remembered my claim so had to act:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that ;) Lixxx235 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite all right. Thank-you for the diligence in finding and reporting that nonsense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit

Throwing out an idea - there are a number of un-conference sessions and empty time-slots and setting up a working session or workshop for improving the Request Edit process would be neat. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sunday open space discussions 18:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One challenge is that I committed to doing something about OTRS with Keegan; I don't know when or how long, but let's see if we can do something. Pinging Geraldshields11 --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		As one of the editors who helped answer my question(s) at the Teahouse concerning my mistaken csd/afd two step with regards to the article Norman Alvis I hereby present you with this Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, I can see now both why and how I screwed this matter up so badly, which will hopefully translate into fewer mistakes of this nature down the road. With my sincere thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mosaic

I uploaded a new version of File:Big statue of liberty frontal 2q.jpg that has at least 3 of the little images you were looking for. Maybe more. They're generally towards the bottom with turquoise frames. Let me know if you can't spot them, and I'll send you columns and rows. Faolin42 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the Stefanie Dolson image, which is the main one I cared about. I'll look for the others. Great to see you again at the Conference, and nice work on the images.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 04:52, Friday, December 13, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thanks for your thoughtfulness

Thanks for checking in about image-tagging - I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. For now, I'd prefer not to add any user or full name labels that aren't already there. --Levendowski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2014

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_WikiConference_USA_(Group_L)_25.JPG is the better group conference photo Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Geraldshields11 Thanks, I've replaced it. And thanks for all the work you did on photos, and thanks in advance for your interest in Request Edit; I'm on pause for a couple days, but will get back to you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When I say better, I meant that in the total circumstances. You did not have to replace the photo that you like better. I am easy going. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I checked to see if I could find myself. If I couldn't, it wouldn't be better for my page :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ping/Notification

I do not have hoops talk page on my watchlist so I was notified by the new notification system that you had mentioned me somewhere. I usually go to peoples talk pages specifically and directly. This makes things clear who is talking to who and why. I am sure your cause for conern as to hoops editing and its ramifications is in the right place. I happened to be of a different opinion. Please read the ANI for others comments rather than mine. I do not have anywhere near the capacity of understanding the ramificatiions of the category removal as those who asked him to 'cease and desist'. satusuro 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely an editor with your experience is familiar with Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. While only an essay, it is my experience that it is often good advice. I am not on top of the category issues, so I do not know who is right or wrong on that issue. My narrow point is that it is considered rude to send a template, urging an editor with over 50,000 edits, to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. (Did you not see my response? I placed it following your comments, rather than break up the discussion onto a different page.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians summer events!

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You're on :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:27, 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)

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)

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/enwiki/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.