User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 56

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

→

FYI

I saw your intervention on [1]. I can assure you that if I could I would defend all my posts, with detailed references & bibliography.....but admins like user:Vituzzu NEVER allow a defense, even if there it is a "Barnstar" (to get more information on him please go to [2] and click on Manmer2015 ....so you'll understand more about who really is this "deletionist" Vituzzu damaging Wikipedia with his "evilness", as he wrote on his user page). Sincerely, BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.52.117 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for any delay in response, I have been out of the country since 14 July and just returned today and did not access Wikipedia while I was away. I read this quickly and did not see that I needed to do anything. I'm not particularly interested in getting more information about whomever. If you are looking for a specific response please be specific.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BARC

Hi. You're familiar with this but it was already 2 years ago. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your updated comments on the talk page before I go live with it. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is going to go live somewhere, sometime, in the next 24 hours. Thank you very much for your input and proofreading. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Signpost paid editing

Do you have any interest in writing two paragraphs about paid editing for the SignPost?

I offered to help put something together that's a collection of two-paragraph viewpoints that answer two questions: What is the overall effect of paid editing on the project and what can be done to handle it better.

The idea is that a lot of the Signpost stories on paid editing are written by editors with strong opinions, extreme views, or financial interests, and I wanted something a little more balanced and reasonable. Editors with strong views are never ideal in article-space either!

What I've started on is located here if you have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Chas Grave

Hi, Thank you for your message. If you can post a comparison between the offending section of the article and the source on my page it would be appreciated. Paul venter (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul venter I'm now thinking it was a false positive to our new mirroring site. I have restored the article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Much obliged - thank you! Paul venter (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Upper Tamakoshi

Why was this deleted as copyvio when I improved the page (although I hadn't visited it again until now)? SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister If I’m reading the edit history correctly, you added information to the page, but the initial creation of the page appeared to be a copyvio and I did not see that you cured the problem. Let me know if you think I misread the sequence.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I removed as much as I could, but it seemed notable (that's why I'm also concerned about the deletion). SwisterTwister talk 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister The original article was copied from this page:

link

Your edit appeared to remove the initial sentence but then replaced it almost identical to the way it read before.

Note that my deletion had nothing to do with notability. It may well be notable but as you know it needs to be written in original language without copying someone else’s language. Feel free to re-create it but please do not use the language from the page linked above.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If at all I appeared to replace it almost identical, it's because I couldn't think of another way to rewrite that in a different yet still understable tone. As I recall, that blogger may have been the same author of this article so they basically added their own research (research based on news reports and such). If I'm going to restart it, I'd appreciate an email copy sent and, if you wish, you can then review it. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

SwisterTwister I sent the text.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for following up on my request to remove date of birth from article on Tuzhilin.

JS (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend again. FYI I'm going to bed and won't be back around till thursday morning. ...William 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

In thanks for your reply at my talk page. ...William 14:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Caribbean Cup Templates

I restored Template:Cuba Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup (which I had initially deleted) because three out of the seven participants at the discussion indicated a preference for championship team templates to be retained. As such, A clear consensus for deletion of this template is not present. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for letting me know--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I provided a rationale at the discussion regarding the retention of Template:Cuba Squad 2012 Caribbean Cup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 03:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting move of talk page

Hi Spilbrick, can you please move Talk:Center for Medical Progress (political organization) to Talk:Center for Medical Progress as you moved the article body? The old discussion page has only a discussion of the possible move - I've blanked the target page, but an admin needs to do the talk page move because the target exists. Thanks. -- Callinus (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Callinus I think I've done it, please check. I'm puzzled because the move request normally includes an option to move the talk page so I don't know why that didn't just automatically happen.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick looks good. I think you'd probably deleted the stub page, but not the stub talk page (which had one line about the proposed move). The move of the article went ahead, but the talk would have failed as the talk page wasn't deleted yet. It's all good now. -- Callinus (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

I like your idea. Indeed it's something that WSC has been suggesting for years. The time might be right now to do something about it and you could get ready for an RfC in the Fall. Vandalism by IPs is often only directed at a single page (or group of related pages) in which case the preferred action is to protect the page(s), so I believe limited powers of page protection could be offered with the job. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung Thanks for your comment. First, absolutely, regarding the timing. Let's hold off a bit, and maybe we can tweak it informally. For example, I hadn't thought about your observation that much of what the anti-vandal fighters do might be directed at a limited number of pages, so some page protection could be part of the package. I would also suggest short limits. We don't like to have pages protected longer than necessary, but I think (caveat I haven't done much vandal work) many of the vandals get bored easily so 24 or 48 or 31 hours protection might cover quite a bit. Obviously, there will be times more is needed but I'm imagining that a non-admin with these powers might protect it for a short period, find they have to protect it a second time and after the second time might bring it to the admin's for further review.

I'm also thinking it would be relatively easy to record all timeouts (if you like my term) and short-term page protection by non-admin's (no need for a new term here I think) into a page which some admins could volunteer to review to make sure that these tools are not used inappropriately. In rare cases, they might shorten or overturn a timeout or page protection but in other cases they might decide to impose a longer block or longer page protection.

It would also have the added benefit of providing a track record when these people decide to run for RFA. While we would want to be careful not to judge a relatively new editor to harshly if they make a couple early mistakes, the fact that they know their work will be scrutinized at the time of an RFA will help them make sure they do not overuse the tool.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than based on hard data, a lot of my conclusions on Wikipedia are empirical having worked as an admin in rotation for long, intense periods in various venues which have an eventual bearing on adminship issues. Apart from the vandalism patterns I mentioned earlier, I found that: vandalism is rarely committed by people who are beyond school age; regular vandalism patrollers generally do a very good job; vandalism is not easy to detect by users who are not native English speakers; vandalim is often missed by users who do not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter; other forms of vandalism may not be caught by patrolers of an intellectual or scholarly level demanded by the subject matter; after a relatively short block, vandals don't generally return after the block expires; protected pages generally remain free of vandalism after a relatively short sp has expired; a very significant number of users seeking additional rights such as reviewer and rollbacker through WP:PERM, do so very early in their Wiki careers and are hat collecting.

I don't think the gravity level (in cases of blatant vandalism) demands more competence than for example, correctly applying a CSD tag - the downside is that we have no controls whatsoever over who can tag articles for deletion. I therefore have this theory that if it were possible to obtain consensus for unbundling very limited powers of blocking and protecting, it should be possible to introduce criteria of competency for NPP and up-bundle them to the new user group. e.g. 'Vandalism & New Page Patroller'. I successfully got a set of qualifications established for WP:AfC reviewers, so IMO, it should be doable and at the same time achieve higher stadards all round by having an attractive job description. Such a user right may not necessarily requre a RfA style process, but could conceivably granted at WP:PERM if endorsed by, say, just for example, two admins. Anything else IMO, would just be creating even more bureaucracy.

As you have probably noticed, over the years I have been a staunch opponent to unbundling the tools under the premise that anyone who wants any of them should run at RfA and get them all. However, as even the best intended attempts to improve or reform the RfA process seem remain at their taditional impasse, I must concede now that if any prigress is to be made at all I will support a solution based on the lines you have suggested. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick story – a few years ago I decided to spend some time at NPP. It wasn't all that hard to find clear evidence of vandalism, but I tried to go the extra step and make sure that usage of a particular term didn't happen to be on the article about that particular term. That doesn't take very long, but I found if I spent 30 seconds making sure I was correct, the odds are high somebody had already taken care of it. I could have ramped up my reaction time but I decided instead to work on other things. As a consequence, my vandalism work is less extensive than many others. That said, I do have a sense of it and I'm happy to see that just about everything you said matches what I would've guessed. I'm leaning toward thinking that the block (or timeout) for vandal fighters should be relatively short. I was originally thinking 24 hours, (which someone suggested should really be 31) but I'm now thinking it should be more like four or two. Your observations support the usefulness of even that short a time. It may be enough in many cases. I think we are also on the same page that the community is RFC weary at least with respect to RFA proposals so let's hold off a bit, think about this a bit more, maybe keep refining it and plan a more formal proposal in the fall.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about NPP, it's not actually our gatekeeper for vandalism, it's the system that ultimately gets inappropriate new pages deleted. Admittedly some new pages are in themselves vandalism but that is fairly rare and the New Page Patrollers have ways of dealing with it. Most vandalism happens to existing pages and some of it is unexplainedly random (Like 'Zorro woz here' on a toilet wall) while a lot of it, especially pages on subjects of interest to young users is targeted such as deliberately entering silly names for the staff on a school infobox or falsifying info on childrens' video game pages (Pokemon and anime are classic examples). What I think is that combining NPP with the unbundling of 'Vandal blocker" would get us the best of both worlds, increase the popularity and perfornace of NPP because it would now have a hat to wear, more rapid intervention for blocking vandals and protecting the pages, and reducing the number of frivolous requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, although perhaps not at WP:PERM where all the requests for the new right would probably be processed.

It appears that the community is now demanding RfCs in which the proposals already have evert conceivable T crossed and I dotted. While this brand new trend makes sense to some, it shuts out ideas from others which sometimes are quite valuable. To twist the famous comment by Abe Lincoln, You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time, to get this RfC right you will probably need to enlist more help from WereSpielChequers because he is a firm proponent of this unbundling and it will take until the fall to get the wording right. Best of luck, and if you need anymore input from me you know where to find me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Breadline lowres.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Breadline lowres.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, Sphilbrick. With respect to your note at User talk:PetesGuide, I just wanted to let you know that I was not ignoring you! Unfortunately, pings are a bit wonky. To avoid people being pinged when their text is archived, for instance, it only works if you sign in the edit when you use it. If there's not a signature, it doesn't function. I think probably it didn't function because the ping didn't work in this edit, and there was no signature when you fixed it. :/ Anyway, if I ever seem to be ignoring you, please pop by my talk page! I would never intentionally do so and don't like to do so even accidentally. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl Oh well, something new to watch out for. Actually did know that if you add a ping and don't sign it then come back and sign it the ping won't work. As someone who occasionally forgets to sign a post and has to return to do it, I try to watch for this. But it didn't sink in until just now what happened in that edit. I did sign the first edit but I malformed the ping template and then fixed it. As is often the case, it is now obvious why that failed but it didn't sink in at the time.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Completely understandable; I've done similar myself. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete of article MAD School

@@Sphilbrick: May I know what is your rationale on deleting the above page? Have you actually read it before deleting? I think the revised version by @@Seraphimblade: has been toned down by so much that it is really an article that tells wiki users what is this school about without absolutely any signs of advertising as you have stated in your reason for deletion. I hope you are not delete-happy kind of admin just to gain "brownie-points". Hungryheartz (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hungryheartz would you please reply to my question about your connection with MAD School here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

see the section above, where I've indicated that I've restored it. If there is a close COI connection, that's problematic.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: not sure if you have seen my reply to your question on another page. Please let me know if you did not. @S Philbrick: I am an ex student of the school, will that be considered as a close connection? Anyway, if it is then delete the article if you guys deem fit. I am quite tired of pursuing this already...it was just an out of goodwill post that got me quite frustrated with using wiki in the end.~~

2013, 2012 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Hi Sphilbrick. Thanks for your feedback and you are right that I should have left a more detailed note in the edit. I would point out that on the 2012 page it was User:Rich Farmbrough who deleted the bot comment and he is perhaps more experienced than me and you combined!

From what I can tell the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" appears itself to be a direct copy of pages from Wikipedia rather than the other way round and is, to my mind, in no way a reliable source. This is a question that I have raised in Talk:2012 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and if you have any further thoughts or comments on the matter then please post them there. WakelessGrub (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page in a few minutes.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding G11 deletion

Hello Sphilbrick, I wanted to ask you about your G11 of MAD School. I'd actually initially deleted this for G11, and the rewrite they did was only marginally better, but since they seemed to be an overenthusiastic student rather than your normal spammer, I helped clean it up rather than deleting it again. I really don't think the version that was deleted was spammy at all, could you go into detail as to why you G11'd it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Done it wasn't so much spammy as lack of content other than claiming existence. Perhaps that's the result of the originally spare me article which you trimmed down. I've restored it in hopes that it will be improved pretty weak at the moment.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll certainly agree that it's not the greatest article at this point, but the general outcome is that postsecondary schools are considered notable. May as well have at least a stub on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Valoem/Nintendo Life

Please restore i requested this because i plan on restoring soon. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Valoem If you mean User:Valoem/Nintendo_Life it has already been done for you by someone else.

I was requesting the talk page as well. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously ? I did it but you could've re-created it in 100th of the time it took me to restore it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I just like full history retained whenever I plan on restoring anything. :) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing and a "COI" flag

I read your comment in the recent Wikipedia Signpost.

Every now and then I edit an article in which I have a WP:COI. Depending on the nature of the edit, I will either flag it in the edit summary, flag it and self-revert and open a discussion, or, for anything that may be controversial, NOT make the edit but propose it on the talk page instead.

If there was a check-box I could mark called "COI edit" that would make that edit fall under pending-changed protection and (perhaps with the aide of a script) put a link to a talk-page-discussion of that edit in the edit summary and add a "COI" tag, that would let me and other "honest COI editors" edit more easily AND it would provide a standardized way of labeling COI edits. If this were coupled with a watchlist-like mechanism whereby ALL my edits on pages I added to that watchlist had the "COI tag" pre-checked, that would be even better. Of course it would do nothing for "bad actor" edits but it would help with "honest COI editors" paid or otherwise.

Do you thing such a system is 1) technically feasible, and 2) likely to be accepted by the community? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I haven't read the signpost article yet; I guess I should :)

My first reaction is that it sounds like an idea worth exploring. I have two types of concerns. It is my understanding that pending changes attaches to articles not to edits. Almost anything is possible, but I think it is highly likely that implementing it is not quite as simple as turning on pending changes for an edit by edit basis. That said, if it is a good idea it is worth pushing. My second concern relates to how we decide who can approve the edit. It is my opinion that many editors, and not just those with advanced permissions such as admin's or 'crats, have the experience to address this. However, I am not comfortable that a newbie with a dozen edits can properly suss out the issues involved in a COI edit. The second problem is not related to the technical issue, it is a problem that we've discussed but haven't fully addressed with respect to the general issue of COI edits.

In general, I am interested in identifying processes which makes it easier to be an honest COI editor, while maintaining the ability to deter the bad actors. However, given attempts to make other changes in other areas, which have received substantial pushback, I am not fully optimistic about the community support for it might be a good idea.

On occasion I've been active in the COI era area; I confess I'm not at the moment due to the shiny bobbles in the copyright and OTRS queues, but I know COI is an area that needs attention. I'm going to ping CorporateM who has more experience in this area.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been brought up several times before. This would provide a more reasonable system than trying to puppetmaster an editor to make your changes from the Talk page. It seems a pretty obvious solution and I believe @Jimbo Wales: too has expressed support for it. However, as Sphilbrick said, currently Pending Changes can only be done on a per-article basis, whereas to use it for COI you would need to be able to do it on a per-edit or per-account basis. My understanding is that only WMF could develop and implement this feature. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought this may have come up before, thanks for reminding me. Someday, we may have to more formally push for the foundation to look into this. I'm up to my eyeballs in other projects at the moment so I can't lead it now.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that WMF is trying to make an active effort to listen more to the community and integrate it's feedback into product development. @DGG: might have more information on this. I would think it might be easy technically-speaking, but they would be hesitant to act without full, unequivocal support from the community, which they are unlikely to get. Although COI is a hot topic, the broader use for an opt-in for pending changes is for new users or anyone that is unsure of their edits and wants someone else to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 06:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bouncing off of what CorporateM said immediately above:

"Although COI is a hot topic, the broader use for an opt-in for pending changes is for new users or anyone that is unsure of their edits and wants someone else to take a look."

Do you guys think adding code to MediaWiki for generic "editor requests that the edit be held for review" check-box, where the "reviewer level" would be set on a per-wiki basis with a default setting of "anyone - even non-logged-in editors - can approve this edit" on Wikis that haven't adopted a tighter setting would get much traction by developers and the Foundation? This would let the code be written and pushed out first, postponing the "politics" until a given Wiki decided they wanted a stricter setting on who could "review" such edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I am out of my depth when it comes to something like MediaWiki or feature development. All I can say is that taking initiative would be a very worthwhile endeavor and your plan of action looks sound. It would be such a better experience for new editors if they could request their edits be ~~oversighted~~ reviewed and get feedback, rather than being reverted. It would also be 100x better than Request Edits for COI applications, but we can just put a COI disclosure in the edit-summary without requiring any special features developed just for COIs. A check-box similar to "This is a minor edit" is probably the way to go. CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any special technical/coding skills, but if there is some way I can help, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 00:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I do not know how it would be best implemented. My initial thoughts are that it should definitely not be done with the PC system, which is much too elaborate as is. I hope the WMF will be more attentive to our requests for development, but the entire pCsystem is too controversial--especially since various people at the WMFas insisted on using the higher protection level of PC2, even though the community decided not to implement it on enWP. My strongest objection to PC2 (and PC1, for that matter,) is that it is too confisng and elaborate. I have always avoided working on any article where PC is in effect, because I do not want to figure out what the status of the changes may be.Having three levels would be worse yet. We already have the "review requested" tag in its various forms, and what we need to do is to maker more editors aware of it.

I think technical fixes are worth pursuing, tho I am skeptical they will accomplish very much. What is needed is a change in the community attitude towards promotionalism. For example, I have been using at AfD variations on "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia", and it is having increasing success.

I'd also like to move in the direction of rule changes about how we deal with promotional editors, that would increase our notability requirements for the most-affected classes of articles (I remain at heart an inclusionist, but promotionalism is even worse than deletionism.)

I'd personally even more like fundamental changes facilitating the identification of violations of our our Terms of Use, but I doubt the practicality of asking for these, as they might involve compromising anonymity, and doing anything in that direction would probably be overwhelmingly rejected at every level. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we're largely on the same page. Before pending changes was implemented, I remember thinking it was such a great idea in concept. Why not have a system where an editor can make an edit that doesn't show up in the live version until someone with more experience has accepted it? Then it was implemented, and I found it confusing. I consider myself a fairly experienced editor, and I've managed to negotiate through some of our difficult processes, but I found the pending changes approach nonintuitive. I'm sure I could figure it out, but that initial barrier to entry turned me off. As a result, I find myself avoiding articles with pending changes. Plus, as you suggest, making it more complicated doesn't seem like the right direction. I guess I'm reacting positively to the generic concept of pending changes, which I have always liked. Maybe we need to hit the reset button and rethink how we do pending changes.

I'm also torn about getting more involved. There is only so much time in the day. Every once in a while, I get into a COI mode, and try to help clean up some of the backlog, but copyright issues and OTRS issues are also important and I've been spending more time there.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: and I are on the same page in deleting blatant adverts regardless of notability and especially when notability is marginal. I find that it is the volunteer-written adverts that are the most difficult to delete though and many of these are not for corporations. Guidance like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) I think is also very useful.

Regarding the subject at-hand though, are there any alternatives to pending changes? I see that, like all of Wikipedia, it has room for improvement, but I'm not aware of any other options for achieving this kind of feature. My first thought is that the shortcomings of pending changes may be another topic alltogether. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:(butting in here...) There is always the option of "Get someone write new code (or do it yourself) and get it implemented (get it tested, get it approved by technical people, get it through all relevant wiki-political processes, etc.)." It is the "fallback option" (and frequently the "only option") for most new-feature requests, and it is far easier said than done. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Security question

R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace, why is this even possible within Wikipedia? I mean, I didn't wanna abuse anything but obviously there would be no manual reason to do any redirect from the Public namespace (articles) to any Draft:Article, right? Maybe this should be fixed globally. Thanks for finding that out. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Huggi I guess you are referring to my deletion of a redirect from mainspace to a draft. While ~~someone~~ that one was not appropriate, and I cannot immediately think of a situation where it would make sense, I wouldn't want to globally prohibit it without additional consideration of all possibilities. Plus, it happens so rarely it may be easier to just ~~examples then~~ handle manually rather than go through the effort of modifying the software. If it becomes common, then it may be time to revisit.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Huggi: Common reasons for R2-eligible redirects are page moves of newly-created, obviously-not-ready-for-manspace pages to Draft: or User: space if those pages would otherwise be deleted but they could be salvaged with some significant amount of effort, page moves of non-articles to the appropriate namespace (not so common but you sometimes see users creating MYUSERNAME instead of User:MYUSERNAME then they or another editor moves the page to where it belongs, leaving a redirect), and new users who need some wiki-education creating good-faith inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. I agree with you in principle that such actions - especially new-editor mistakes - should "raise an alarm" so the leftover redirect can be quickly flagged for deletion. I also agree with SPhilbrick that it's not worth changing the Wiki code at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article- niyas chola

This person has awarded best teacher award for teaching . See this following link.

The Hindu News paper

Akbarali

The Indian express

(talk) 02:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Akbarali The article consisted of two short sentences. It isn't yet ready for Maine space. I've moved it to draft space so you can work on it. You can find it here:

Draft:Niyas_Chola

When you think it is ready add the following code to the top of the page and someone will review it for you:

{{subst:submit}} --S Philbrick (Talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of New San Jose Builders

I believe that the New San Jose Builders shouldn't have been deleted. The organization is a notable construction company at least in the national level. The organization is involved in building the Philippine Arena, the largest roofed indoor arena in the world. This type of companies are usually defined by the magnitude of their projects or the techniques they use in their project. Also received notable coverage in primary reliable sources nationally: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. At least the article shouldn't have been deleted due to A7.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hariboneagle927 I moved it to Draft:New_San_Jose_Builders So you can work on it. It needs work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)