User talk:Sphilbrick

Welcome!

Hello, Sphilbrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi. An IP posted to your userpage the following text: fggfgd. Another user assumed that this was some kind of test, unrelaetd to anything so it seemed as a courtesy to delete it. I hope it caused no problems. Greetings. --Tone 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament

Hi there! Thank you for fixing my mistake. The photographer mistakenly labeled the album that contains the UConn/Texas pictures as "UConn vs Cornell", and I didn't bother to look at the pics closely to see it was actually Texas players. I will be sure to be careful next time when I upload a bunch of pics :) Anyway, I am indeed an Aggie fan, and I can't wait for the men's game against UConn tomorrow. I'm not expecting a win since the Huskies are really good - in fact, I have them going to the Final Four in my bracket! It will be a fun game to watch. As for our women's teams, we will meet in the Elite Eight if things go well for both of our teams. I'm not looking forward to that game since the UConn women are on fire this season! I wish the best of luck to both the UConn men's and women's teams, unless they play the Aggies of course ;) BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great maps! I was just wondering if the 4 regional maps should be after the 1st/2nd round maps since they are the 1st/2nd round and then they move on to the regional sites? A little thing I know, but just thought I would offer that suggestion. Keep up the good work! Moonraker0022 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. My first thought was, "of course, how did I miss that?" but then I thought about why I did it, and I confess I'm torn.

The structure of the article is to talk about: 1 The FF results 2 Then the regionals 3 Then the subregionals.

So my selected order was an attempt to match the order of the article. That said, it isn't the case that there is one section covering FF and regional and another section covering subregionals - had that been the case, it would be natural to include the maps in their respective sections. I was trying to get the maps as close as possible to the text, and it is close, but not as clean as it could be.

I was thinking the order of the text was canonical, but I briefly looked around, and it is not. The last few women's tournaments follow the ff, regional, subregional order, but the 2005 page discusses the subregionals before the regionals, and the 2004 page doesn't have a separate discussion of the sites. Plus, the men's 2009 discusses the rounds in order.

While I understand an encyclopedic article isn't a mystery story; we don't save the result to the end, once the overall results are shown, perhaps it would make sense to discuss the rounds in order - subregionals then regionals. If that happened, then the maps could also be in the order you suggest.

I'm going to write this up and put it on some of the talk pages - see if there is a consensus that the canonical order should be: 1 Overall results summary 2 Discussion of rounds in chronological order, rather than reverse chronological order. If I don't hear persuasive arguments opposed, I'll see if I can reform the text, and the order of the maps.

Once again, thanks for the feedback - they weren't hard to create once I figured it out, but I did spend some time figuring out how to make a map, so it is great to know someone saw it.Sphilbrick (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Map size

I think that there are two possible solutions: my preference would be to have it as it is now, I don't think that having the numbers slightly overlap creates any problems, in fact I think it looks worse with those huge maps. The other solution, if you don't like that overlap, is the one suggested by Kmusser: you make each dot link to the corresponding team. However this makes it quite hard to find out which dot represents which team, defeating a bit the map's purpose. ChrisDHDR 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: about the map's size problem, just put it this way: all those dots together wouldn't even be equal to a fifth map - so don't worry about it.

Thanks for the feedback - I still have to move some material around, so the maps line up where they belong, will figure out how to do that later. I did remove the background color, and that cleaned it up a bit.

edit lead section gadget

You invoke the gadget by clicking the edit link which will, I think, be to the right of the main title. Look for edit links on the top right hand side of the articles. –M^T 07:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

duh, I get it now. I was assuming I'd go to a page that didn't have an edit option for the first section, and click on some option to create it and save it (then everyone else would see it). I didn't realize that it would make the option appear for me, without doing anything. Now I see it. Thanks.Sphilbrick (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Huskies

Thank you for your assistance. Maple Leaf (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo

Nice catch. I have made the corrections. Thanks again! Maple Leaf (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi there. Thank you for the update. I contacted user:Nmajdan. He has done a lot of work on the NCAA Team Season template and I figure he will have the appropriate answer. It would be nice to have the season pages default to the women's program instead. Maple Leaf (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You have made my day. I will go ahead and fix the rest of the articles. Thank you very much!!!!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your numerous and valuable contributions I award you the original Barnstar! Maple Leaf (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: revert on Extreme points of the United States

The reason "above 10,000 ft." is not redundant is because other towns (such as Winter Park) have land above that elevation, but all the permanent residents live below it. Leaving out that phrase implies that Winter Park has no permanent residents, which is untrue. --Lasunncty (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I catch your point, however, it is an extremely inelegant way to put it. I'll try to think of something better, and leave the phrase in until I do, however, I will add the necessary qualifier about US territory - otherwise it implies there are no higher towns with permanent residents in the world, and we know La Rinconada is higher.Sphilbrick (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

National Highway shield

Hi i want to a image as a function, something like [[File:National_shield|No=2| 100 px]] to get File:National highway 2.svg -- Naveenpf (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. I haven't yet figure out how to do templates - sounds like a challenge. BTW, I checked out your India Highway System - very impressive.--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Naveenpf (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of public financing section from Geothermal heat pump

You're right, strictly speaking, that it's not a copyright violation, but it is still plagiarism. I didn't quite realize that difference at the time I deleted that material. So I see two wrongs here: I should have flagged the problem on the talk page rather than deleted the text, since there was no urgent need to act. Mea culpa, and I'll do better next time. However, the text was an exact quote, which isn't right either. It should be rewritten and integrated into the article.

Do you seek a remedy for this? I'm not strongly motivated to restore the text, but I won't delete it again if you or anyone else restores it. Given time, I'll probably work on integrating it into the article myself. Thank you for pointing out this issue to me.--Yannick (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. To be honest, I had mixed feelings on whether the content belonged, but when I saw the Copyright notice, I was pretty sure that wasn't an issue, so I checked. I do agree, it is plagiarism, and it either should be reworded, or credited.--Sphilbrick (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Use of table in dab

[ Your text is repeated here: respond either below or in W*talk:MOSDAB. ]

"I just edited a dab to replace two lists with two tables. After doing so, I realized I don't recall seeing dabs with tables and wondered why. While the guidelines state that the entries should be in a bulleted list, the motivation is that people find the item they want quickly. While I was writing this, it has been reverted. My version is here: [1]

"I imagine that one reason a person might encounter the 850 AM page is that they have been listening to the radio, but didn't hear the station, or they catch a fleeting glimpse of a billboard, and only recall the frequency. They either Google and get the dab or come straight to WP and find the dab. Presumably, they know where they are, so they will want to look at the city or the state to see the likely station. The list isn't that long, they can do that, but this is what computers are designed to do. Click to sort by city or state, then look to see which stations are nearby.

"I suggest this is in the spirit of making it easier for the user to find what they want. Not appropriate in all cases, but arguably, appropriate in this case.--Sphilbrick (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with you, and I think you made an excellent attempt to improve that page. There might be problems due to the restrictive nature of the MOS:DAB style guidelines. Disambiguation pages are a special-case of what could be called "fork-pages" which provide a "fork in the road" as a set of choices. The term "disambiguation page" was invented and later became forced to list only a fork-page with nearly identical titles, rather than offer readers a fork-page based on some other concept, such as a fork to choose among similar images, or choose from titles ending with a specific word. Currently, Wikipedia is experiencing growing pains as to how pages should be allowed to appear. The page with 2 sortable tables, which you edited, should probably be changed into a "list-page" by removing "{disambig}" and putting a bottom line as "[[Category:Lists]]". Perhaps some information scientists should get together and try to actually define a long-term Wikipedia structure, involving fork-pages and the sortable "fork-tables" that you have invented at this point. Please don't be discouraged: there are nearly 10 million registered WP users, and many people will agree with your viewpoint about the sorting. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also: I just used the location-sort in your version of the page, and I must say that it is not just "arguably" better, it is obviously better. Perhaps to keep the alignment, indent the tables by "margin-left:1.5em" such as using:

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-left:1.5em" ....

I noticed the page already has a bottom category-link as a list, so you could just remove the "{disambig}" template-line and move on to your next major improvement. Well done. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for fixing Lipscomb coordinates

Actually, Google Maps works well for such high-profile locations. You can just type in the name of the university into the search bar, and it'll generally get you to the right place, or at least the general area. Another strategy is to visit the entity's website and see if you can find a directions or contact page with a physical address, and then again plug them into Google Maps. An even better alternative is Acme Mapper, which provides the coordinates right on the page. Up to you which one you use. Lemme know if you need any help. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I knew that one could get coordinates from Google, I tried once and didn't see it. I tried again, and I now see that if I click on the "link" button, it creates some code that contains the coordinates. Thanks also for the link to Acme Mapper, I've book marked it.--SPhilbrickT 13:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

test

--SPhilbrickT 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bio Format proposal

For ideas about Biography formats, you might want to include the folks at WP:WPBIO, they've thought about the many ins and outs of these things. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thought. I've been narrowly thinking about bios of basketball players, so checked the college basketball project, but I'll check out your suggestions.--SPhilbrickT 11:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Tulane

Hi there. Thank you very much for pointing out my error on the roster with regards to the 2009–10 Tulane Green Wave women's basketball team. I have made the necessary changes, so you can go ahead and clean up the sorting. You are doing an excellent job!!! Maple Leaf (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just cleaned up the sorting, and added a note to the talk page (because if someone gets added, the person adding might not see what to do.) --SPhilbrickT 16:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Help Desk Request

Hey, I replaced the content with the version that you wanted. I went to the last good version, clicked the edit tab, copied and pasted the text over all the existing text in the article. Hope that was what you wanted, Fingerz 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Oddly, I had done exactly that, except the last step and got cold feet. I worried it might bring out the wrath of some bot for violating some rule - so I decided not to be bold and ask.--SPhilbrickT 01:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

After clicking edit at a version in the history, you can just write an edit summary, for example "revert to version ...", and click Save page. See more at Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. FYI, when I clicked on that version, and tried the undo button, it told me I had to do it manually - which I interpreted as something more serious than is actually necessary - I don't quite know how to find that message, but if it pointed to the reverting page, it would be helpful. If it does, and I missed it, my apologies- I was a bit flustered wondering how to clean up my mess and may have missed it. One more FYI, I have Prime95 installed, and have for years, so I'm part of the GIMPS team - I've read some of your work - nice stuff.--SPhilbrickT 02:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess you got the message at MediaWiki:Undo-failure (maybe in red) which via a redirect has a piped link to the section Help:Reverting#Undo. "Undo" can only undo the effect of one edit at a time. You can often undo multiple edits by first undoing the latest, then the second latest and so on, but it's easier to revert directly to a version in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history.

If you are the only contributor of content of a page, for example your sandbox, then you can choose to use copy and paste to copy the content to a new article instead of moving the sandbox page. If you do this then the page history stays with the sandbox instead of moving to the article. In order to ensure GFDL credit to contributors, the page should be moved if there are other contributors. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I saw that move was preferred over copy and paste to conserve edit history, but I agree, that isn't necessary when the original is in a sandbox with only one person's edits.--SPhilbrickT 12:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfd

Hi, I saw you recently made a comment to WP:TFD and was curious about something. You voted keep, but th argment you made seemed more in line with the delete position. Just wanted to see if you could make a clarification. Thanks! - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Height template

I don't quite recall what the problem exactly was, but I do remember it was not easy to fix without some major re-design. To bypass this bug, you can either specify the fractions:

{{height|m=1.52|frac=16}}→1.52 m (4 ft 11+13⁄16 in)

{{height|m=1.82|frac=16}}→1.82 m (5 ft 11+5⁄8 in)

or use {{convert}} or {{m to ft in}} instead of {{height}}. You can also drop a note at template talk:Convert asking to re-examine and possibly re-design the {{height}} template. When I was working on it, {{convert}} did not support conversion to vulgar fractions; I think it does now, so re-writing the template should be a cinch to the conversion templates-writing mavens. If for some reason they can't/don't want to help, please let me know and I'll take another look at this template myself. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:37, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could help you with {{convert}}, but I was not involved with its development and have only a very general idea of how it works. I see you have already requested help at that template's talk page; hopefully the folks there will be able to help. If they don't, let me know, and I'll try to do something about {{m to ft in}} (which is the template relied on by {{height}}, which is why they both have the same bug with displaying "12 inches"). Sorry for not being of much help with this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I "picked" on you, because I saw your name in recent edit history, and it looked like you were doing something substantial. I hope the request in the talk page will produce an answer - if not, I'll come back. Thanks for the note that Convert uses the other template, makes sense. --SPhilbrickT 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's {{height}} (not {{convert}}) that uses {{m to ft in}}. {{Convert}} is pretty much self-contained, although it utilizes oodles of its own subtemplates for efficiency reasons. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi there. I really admire your hard work and dedication. Your commitment to quality is outstanding. I am glad to see that you got help with the height template (I am more of a content guy, so my knowledge regarding style is limited). With regards to the Team Roster templates, removing the red links is a really smart idea. I never considered the deletion aspect. Great initiative on your part. Hope you're having a great day!! Maple Leaf (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot. I spent the whole weekend working on various wiki pages, then need to get back to work, but your note helps make it worthwhile. I'm interested in content, but I'm also a process geek, so I read more than I care to on the history of red links. In short, while I disagree with the argument, there are some who feel that red links in templates are a sign the template should be deleted. So I plan to keep them to a minimum, and if I create a page for someone without a link, I'll find it via search.--SPhilbrickT 16:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Date formats

Saw your message to user:Dismas. Here is the relevant section of WP:DATE: Wikipedia:Date#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic. I suggest that you leave it as is. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think the policy is wrong, but just like WP isn't about truth, policy isn't about being right.--SPhilbrickT 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Date formats

Regarding your comment about the Hazel Walker article, I was going according to the second paragraph of the MOS page at WP:DATE.

For example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject.

Of course, here we're dealing with the opposite, an American subject but the point remains the same.

Additionally, it looked strange to have the date in the intro be in Brit format while in the infobox, the format was American. So, to bring some uniformity to the two, I changed the Brit format to American due to the fact that the subject is(was) American.

Although, you also have a point in that further on in that same paragraph, it states:

If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I don't care too much either way, although I do think it looks odd to have Brit. date formats for an American subject. Dismas|^(talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had looked at the "first major contributor language" but missed the policy about using the predominant format if the subject matter is associated with one country. I won't revert, but I do want to comment - I don't accept that the formats should be labeled Brit and American. I think a better characterization would be - sensible standard used throughout almost all the world, and an alternative format used by some, but not all Americans. I do understand that when the month is spelled out, there is no ambiguity, but it is common in many places to shorten the date to ##/##/#### and this format is ambiguous. I'd like to see Americans adopt the sensible standard, so that shortening to numbers doesn't create confusion. I also understand that WP isn't a soapbox, so this isn't the place to make a stand, but the wikipedia Policy is not one I support. --SPhilbrickT 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit to Ann Strother

Darius, you added a medal template to Ann Strother. Given your number of edits, and when you did this (2007), you might not remember this. I want to remove the section called vital statistics as the preferred approach is to include it in an info box. The medal template doesn't appear to support vital stats, so I would like to replace the medal template with a WNBA player template, which does include vital stats. I plan to include her Pan Am results in the main text discussion.

Do you have any opposition to this approach?--SPhilbrickT 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darius_Dhlomo"

Not at all! Keep up the good work. Regards, Darius Dhlomo (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The Robert Conley fix you did looks great

Many thanks, Sphilbrick, on the cleanup on the Robert Conley page. The page looks great.

thanks

thanks for your feedback at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_spread_awareness_of_a_nifty_new_template_I_co-created.3F. I've tried to clarify my "announcement" a bit, hopefully it makes sense now... Agradman ^talk/_contribs 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help, hope I didn't come across as negative, as I think it sounds like a good idea. I'm poking though the links now, but may have to do it later, as it is interfering with my real job:)--SPhilbrickT 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RAK Barnstar

Thanks for your kind comments - it's only the second barnstar I've awarded, but I read his comment earlier, was impressed, and then re-read it just now, and thought I'd do something other than just putting a comment on the Help Desk! There are some good Barnstars at Wikipedia's Barnstars. As it says there, "If you are sure the barnstar is appropriate, don't be shy!" PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

open CRS

hi,
Yes, thanks for mentioning opencrs -- I'm familiar with it -- unfortunately, I only discovered it after posting about ~150 of these links to wikileaks :( But, you're absolutely right: Wikileaks is a fallible source, so I will use openCrs in the future.

Incidentally, I was curious what your experience was, so I checked your contributions page and saw where you made use of my template -- and also saw the rather curt reaction you got from user:Fnlayson ! -- which I sort of apologize for. In my interactions with you, you've been one of the most courteous wikipedians I've met, so it's a shame you got that treatment! --

In my experience posting {{refideas}} on pages, I've gotten negative reactions only when I've posted at the bottom of a page, as you did -- people react territorially, as though I were presenting "news" and pointing out their ignorance of it. Whereas if I post at the top of the page, I get silence. That may be because people don't notice I've made the addition, but I'm OK with that, because ultimately I intend for this content to be accessed through Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere.

As for whether CRS reports are arcane/difficult to access -- historically Congress has been reluctant to release them, so only 10% are available, and they're not formally published but are only posted in "leaky" fashion on sites like OpenCRS / wikileaks, which is how people know about them. The reaction you got actually surprises me, since it's a fairly arcane source of material.

Anyhow, sorry for being verbose (but that tends to happen when I'm in a rush). Thoughts? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Great. Actually, if you don't mind, would you let me write up the comment for the RS Notice board? Over the last few days I've "gathered some experience" with respect to how to best describe this template to get people excited about it (and since it's "my baby," I'd like to have some control over its health). When I post it, I'll drop you a note here, in case you'd like to join the discussion. Much appreciated. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 12:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, quite fabulous -- every one of those bullet points is very helpful to get a sense for my audience. inter alia, it's a reminder that I've not given enough consideration to how familiar people are with "CRS Reports." (I used to work for a Congressman, so of course I assume that everyone is familiar with them :P ). If you don't mind my taking advantage of your generosity, what I'll probably do is write a draft of my post this evening and show it to you, although I know you must be quite busy so I don't mean to make any demands of your time. Thanks. I'll get back to you tonight. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, I'm going to delay this project for a little bit -- first I'd like to write an informative standalone article for CRS Reports that answers all your questions, to avoid spreading further confusion. I've gathered all the sources I need and I (just) have to write the article -- I'm in no rush -- I'll just drop you a line at some unknown time to request some feedback when I have a "proposal" to post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Essentially, now that I know about the existence of that page, I'm all set to go. Thanks again for your help. Agradman ^talk/_contribs 05:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Colin Franklin

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I agree with your point about Mr Franklin being maybe too old to be expected to put a message on wikipedia directly - I stand corrected!

I also agree with the fact that this article (which is about 3 years old) should have had more citations... it's not one that I'd looked at until I saw the message on the Help Desk, and that was a surprise - and anything which is non-referenced should be removed.

I've not had time to look at all of the removed content - at the weekend, the kids kind of stop my ability to work on wikipedia for more than a few minutes! However, from what I recall it was mainly where/when he was born, his degrees and the area in which he currently lives, along with his wife and childrens' names. For the first two areas, I don't see any harm in these being there, as they are adequately sourced. As for where he lives - well, my user page shows I live in Croydon, but that would not make it any easier to find me... if he is a resident of Nepean, that means he is one of 150,000 people... so I don't think that would be a big problem to have that there.

As for his marriage and children, the only part of that which would not generally be on a wikipedia article is about his wife's parents' names. Most articles about living persons include brief details about spouse(s) and children, along the lines of "Charlie Smith married Mary Jones in 1999. They have three children, Alpha, Beta and Delta." In this case though, as there are no reliable sources which mention these details cited, then it is a moot point - I certainly wouldn't keep that information in the article.

From what I can see, there are no other details which have been removed that would be counted as personal.

Thanks for contacting me, and I hope that this explains what (in my reading of the guidelines) Wikipedia's policy on such things are.

Happy Editing! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been re-reading the guidelines for Biographies, specifically Privacy of Names and Note on marital status. As Mr Franklin's children are all over 18, if they were notable in their own right, then they would be eligible to be named. However, as far as I am aware, none of them are notable in their own right, and so I would not put them in the article (and if someone else did, with no reference to their notability, I would remove it). In the case of his marital status and his wife's name, as far as I am aware, their are no sources for this information. If, however, it was verifiable in several sources, then this would be (under the policy) able to go into the article. However, with no sources - although I haven't actually looked, and don't intend to! - I see no reason why it will be. Thanks for your remark on my talk page - the kids are having their food at the moment, so I have a short while to look at wikipedia! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say... Regarding inclusion of family in a bio, I understand it is common, but I feel it should not be done over a subjects objection - as far as I am aware, we have been notified by someone who claims to be a work colleague. I am not aware of any official objection - and although Mr Franklin himself may not be able to do so, perhaps an e-mail to wikipedia from his colleagues official work e-mail. I'll have a look at the original query on the Help Desk, and if the query was from a user account rather than an IP, I'll suggest this. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comment was a general one, motivated by this article, not a specific one. I fully agree that a drive-by comment by a person claiming to be a colleague does not rise to a level requiring action. In fact, if someone reverted the deletions, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. As an aside, I'm mildly put off that someone came to express concerns, and hasn't yet acknowledged that the community made good faith efforts to be responsive. I'll emphasize "mildly" as I understand that there are people with a RL and they elevate that to an importance above WP :) but personally, if I post somewhere in the hope that actions are taken, I try to do so in a way I can monitor to see if actions are taken. I feel I'm rambling now, so I'll stop soon. Colin Franklin is an impressive person - I'm happy this incident occurred giving me a chance to learn more about him. The incident raises quesitons in my mind about how WP ought to approach BLP in general, but I think we are now taking a good path with respect to this bio.

My final comment on this issue - I have left a message on the original questioner's talk page, explaining how Mr Franklin (or himself) could contact the Wikimedia Foundation if they feel that some item on the article is unsuitable - stressing the need for an official e-mail address, such as something@oag-bvg.gc.ca for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I feel that I have done all I need to do (in fact, perhaps more!), so I am now happy to leave this to others. Hopefully, the OP will repond in some way, but whether they do or not, we have done the honourable thing, I feel! Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your addition to the page after my comment above. I agree you have done more than enough. If this level of activity constitutes low activity, I shudder to think what you accomplish during the week:) I contemplated adding something to his talk page as well, but I'll wait to see if there is some response. As an aside, I did review OP's contributions, and a quick survey indicated that s/he has made quality contributions. --SPhilbrickT 17:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick. Thank you for your post. I have absolutely indicated to Mr. Franklin that a lot of changes have been made to the article and have also sent him all the sources you found (incase he was unsure that the information is already published). Hopefully he agrees to the article as is, or with a minor correction here or there. As PhantomSteve mentioned, i've passed along the WikiMedia contacts to him, so if he would like to write them an email afterwards, he may do so.

On a personal level, I completely agree with you, to say he was notable to his field would be a gross understatement. However, I understand his wishes and hope there's a reasonable middle ground that could stay on Wikipedia.

As I mentioned to PhantomSteve, thank you very much for taking an interest in this article, both of your help has been great.

Anandsrivastava2009 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman

No problem. I'll let you know if I run across additional sources you could use. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For giving friendly and helpful answers to all manner of questions on the New contributors' help page and Help desk, day in and day out. — QuantumEleven 08:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hansmeyer

Hi there. Hope all is well. At your convenience, please go right ahead and update the stats accordingly. Your commitment to quality and improving the articles is outstanding. Have a great day!!! Maple Leaf (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

follow up on {{refideas}}

hi SPhilbrick,

We had a conversation a few weeks ago (starting here) regarding this new template I created. I've finally gotten up the courage to make a post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here. Any feedback you could provide would be great. Thanks.

PS I'm no longer focusing on CRS reports; I'm marketing this as a way to organize all sorts of public domain encyclopedic sources. However, I did create the page for CRS Reports which goes a small way towards answering your questions. I have also started a correspondence with Wikileaks asking them to post the method that they obtain their reports; that process is still underway.

Thanks, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Agradman)

Thanks for the note, sounds like good progress—I'm a bit swamped with work, but will try to look into it in a couple days.--SPhilbrickT 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

{{helpme}} Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:BIBLIO I don't feel competent to take care of it.--SPhilbrickT 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be something created for its humorous qualities. :-) I'll leave a note on the user's talk page, asking for him to add a note on it, or put it in Category:Wikipedia humor. Usually things in someone's userspace is a giveaway that it is not a real policy. Killiondude (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I was looking for information on structure of bibliographies, and when looking for relevant page, found wP:Biblio in the search box. Aren't pages starting with WP offical policy pages?

The page on how to do bibliographic references on Wikipedia is at WP:CITATION, with further information at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a reply on my talk page

The Transhumanist    03:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to secure server

Thanks for your contributions to the help desk. Note that most users are not on the secure server and will be logged out when they click a link to it. The help desk gets a lot of new users who may overlook this or get confused about where they are so I think it would be preferable with links to en.wikipedia.org, for example in posts like [2]. A wikilink like McGeddon would be even better in this case. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the url switch doesn't work for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk is the normal url to the help desk and should work if you have normal access to Wikipedia. Can you try it again and say exactly what happens? Does http://en.wikipedia.org work and go the main page? If not then the domain http://en.wikipedia.org may be blocked on your computer or by your ISP (for example in some countries with censorship).PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to reboot my computer every so often - that fixed the problem. Oddly, I was able to access some url's but not the one you posted. Only when I tried to access some unrelated url, did I relaize there was a problem.--SPhilbrickT 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, forum shopping refers to repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. Asking for technical advice is not forum shopping but it's still best to stay in one place unless it turns out nobody there knows a good answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:New editor advice

Hi! I made some (what I think are) improvement to {{New editor advice}}. You may want to take a look to see what you think, and feel free to leave me a message if you want to talk about it. — QuantumEleven 08:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Turks and Caicos Islands dialect

I added a reference to Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks and Caicos Islands dialect. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

TB on behalf of...

Just in case you're not watching, note the reply User_talk:SkaraB#Many_thanks_for_your_comment_Sphilbrick.21.  Chzz  ►  01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for this! I am a newcomer and haven't yet figured out how MyTalk works....I'll spend some more time going through the instructions. Good to see that somebody is keeping an eye out!

SkaraB (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA bar

I think you and I are saying the same thing but we're also both failing miserably in expressing our thoughts clearly. So here's my latest attempt at reconciling your comments and mine:

1. The shrinking admin corps is a problem.
2. It would be nice if we could promote admins at a higher rate.
3. RfA's standards are rising so we sometimes miss chances to promote people who'd most likely make decent admins.
4. We still need to filter out bad candidates so lowering the bar arbitrarily is out of the question.
5. Among this year's failed RfAs, there are candidates who would almost certainly have been promoted a couple of years ago. How many? Well, it depends on what you call "viable candidates" but I'd say between 10 and 25. In any case, their promotion would have still left us with a net loss of active admins for 2009.
6. "RfA is broken" might be a true statement but so is "fixing RfA won't be sufficient". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I very much appreciate your barnstar. Can you believe that that is the first one I've ever gotten? I've been editing for close to three years and have nearly 13,000 edits under my belt, but that's the first time someone's recognized my hard work, so I really do appreciate your distinction. I've been on a college basketball awards tear lately, and I'm slightly OCD so I don't plan on stopping until most (if not all) of the awards' pages look good. Again, muchos gracias. Jrcla2 ^talk 22:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking out time to read and send the comments on article 'no-work....'.I will improve the article as suggested by you. regards.Anandkharebsnl (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at WhatamIdoing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: 2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League

I don't disagree that quoting a sentence without citing it is plagiarism. But in your exchange with Antonytse I did see you give a single example of an edit which was a sentence quoted from elsewhere. Did you? If Antonytse writes in his or her own words, it does require citation, but there is no need to use the stronger term "plagiarism" unless you have evidence. I think both of you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but I wish the word choice could be toned down.--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the notice in Tommy Robredo refers to "Contentious material about living people". The standard is different in that case. I appreciate your willingness to take the tone down a bit; I've urged Antonytse to add citations, I hope that happens and we can all be happy:)--SPhilbrickT 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citations are your friend

I understood that I should provide citations for some of the material added by me, so I said that "the unreferenced materials are not mainly written by me". However, I will try to add citations to the text added by others. I only want to complain about the manner of Mrlodotcom. He said that it is a big joke to allow me to edit in Wikipedia, but later he delete this sentence from my talk page, and suddenly be polite. I know that you have urged him so it is allright now. Happy editing...--Antonytse (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I only stated the fact and it is not provocative. I am happy to see that you become polite and you are not really a "bad kid". But I don't think that I have misconceptions on the term "unsourced materials" and so I don't have to apologize for this.--Antonytse (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't said that I should not provide citation for my contribution. Please don't distort my words.--Antonytse (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I never keep on to say you are wrong and I just want to end our discussions. So it is really good to have a middleman, otherwise you will continue to talk about "plagiarism" and "referencing". --Antonytse (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

Expiditer (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC) here, I do appreciate your help on my sandbox page I didn't know I had to put a summary at the top of the page. I do have a question however. If someone is notable, because of a deed or deeds that they do, doesn't that make them as a person a notable person? I can see what you meant however. I realize that it is hard to put up an article, because of the strict standards, but that is why the reputation that wikipedia has exists. from people like you. Expiditer (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote in my RfA

I read the opposes from Round 1 in detail, and see substantial improvement in questioned areas, including contributions to ANI and XfD. (As an aside, I note his questions in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pastor Theo. Interesting, in light of recent events.)

Well, I don't remember how I ran into him, but I began watching him on something like his third day of editing. It seemed odd that a 'new' editor would be !voting in RfAs and AfD and joining a bunch of WikiProjects. I asked for opinions on IRC, and the general opinion was "well, that isn't concrete evidence and he's not doing anything obviously wrong or detrimental..." I forgot about it for awhile, but when I saw the RfA I was quite alarmed. In IRC, I raised a few queries with editors I trust and got NW to write q7, to which I added my follow-up 7a. I didn't want to continue pressing the issue or oppose, lest I be wrong and seem like a total dick for assuming bad faith, so I backed off and let it go without supporting or opposing. Anyway, cheers! —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, I think you did exactly the right thing. The evidence was circumstantial, so for you to push it too hard would be inappropriate. Asking for a checkuser is supposed to be a big deal, so maybe too heavy handed. The answer given was plausible, if extremely unlikely. --SPhilbrickT 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, checkuser is not for fishing, which that certainly would have been. :-) I've linked this section from my RfA in case any others have questions about this point. Cheers, —Ed17 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree (re fishing). When I see something turn out differently than it should, I like to look back to see what actions could have been taken that would have resulted in a different result. Oftentimes, we look back and realize the signs were there and we just didn't pick up on them. In this case you did see material that raised a red flag, and a checkuser would have (I assume) identified the problem, but I doubt it would have been warranted. Perhaps it couldn't have turned out differently.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: A request

Actually, I think the problem between us is not really "citations".

1. First, He deleted the words "for sponsorship reasons" at the first sentence of 2009–10 Hong Kong First Division League, the reason is that it is grammatically redundant and the word "bma" contain the semantic meaning of "sponsorship".
2. I did not agree his reason, so I reverted the sentence and wrote down something on edit summary, but I am not good in writing English so there are some grammar mistakes in the edit summary.
3. He then deleted the words again and said that I am not experienced in writing and reading English, "please don't be so stubborn".
4. I reverted again and wrote down 'You should fix and point out the grammer mistake, but no just deleting "for sponsorship reasons".' on edit summary. I know that the sentence is totally grammatically wrong after I sumbit my revert, but it is not available to edit "edit summary" after sumbitting.
5. After that, he said "I noticed that you frequently edit the page 2009-10 HK First Division League but there is no referencing whatsoever which is highly unprofessional."
6. I replied that the unreferenced materials is not mainly written by me, and also said that unreferenced is not totally equal to plagiarism.
7. Then he told me there are 2 kinds of plagiarism. I understood those kinds of plagiarism but I disagree that "non-deliberate plagiarism" is totally equal to "unreferenced".

The arguement continues, but I really want to end it.

I said that the unreferenced materials on that article is not mainly written by me. But he distort my words as I don't want to add citations on my contributions. I have started to edit Wikipedia for a year. And I mainly edit articles related to Hong Kong soccer. I clearly know that how to add citations and the important of citations.

The thing that I am really unhappy about is his manner, especially he wrote that it is a big joke to allow me to edit in Wikipedia, although he deleted this sentence later. However, I am happy to see that he changed his tones, so I thanks for your help. I don't know why he had the big response yesterday, and thought that I have to apologize.

Anyway, let's end the matter. My life has been effected by this already. I will concentrate on my study and stop editing Wikipedia for a period of time. I will not make any reply on this matter. Sorry that making troubles to you.--Antonytse (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My overall reply on the past incident

To antonytse and sphilbrick,

Yes, I feel the same, it is affecting my life as well and let's end the matter. I think it is quite normal for people to have different views on referencing and I shouldn't have such a big reaction. I think it is just some misunderstandings that causes us trouble. I want to say sorry to both of you, antonytse and sphilbrick. Maybe I should change my style and manner and think more before arguing. Antonytse, I apologize to you on the incidents before. When I look back I think I am wrong on some viewpoints as well, I think you are reasonable on some viewpoints as well. I think the cause of the problem is our difference on some viewpoints. I think my manner is not good as well. I think I should improve my manner as well. Mrlodotcom Talk contribs 17:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to discuss one thing peacefully, no offense, whether "unreferenced" is equal to "non-deliberate plagiarism". Really no offense. The fact is that all the serious scholars at universities (master level or above) said "unreferenced is equal to plagiarism". When you say the contrary, they will be very angry. Also I think the reason that people misunderstand it is because of the chinese translation of the word "plagiarism". I think the chinese translation of that word is not good, that's why it leads to misunderstandings. By the way, I won't say I am right or wrong as I also want to clarify it. Anyway just treat it is as a casual discussion or just forget it right now.  Mrlodotcom Talk contribs 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

hi Antonytse,

hey, let's be friends and I saw the 2009-10 Hong Kong first division league is very systematic to contain all the information. Especially I like the usage of frames and it contains all the updated score. And I feel the "HKFA.com" site is very poor, don't you have the same feeling? I think your information is much better and quite updated. Also I think South China is very unlucky to lose 4-5 away. Also, I always visit Mr Lo's blog, just as the local fans. Those info on wiki are quite good as well, to keep us updated.  Mrlodotcom Talk contribs 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet: Inline error

I'm getting an error when placing the footnote at the bottom of the page. Can you please help? Thanks Likeminas (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. Found one minor error (my fault in my sandbox) but that didn't fix it—not seeing why it isn't working. Will keep looking.--SPhilbrickT 13:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now--SPhilbrickT 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Incubation

Seems like a good possibility! Although I am not sure if the article would end up surviving on its own or merge into and expand much of the original article (i.e. into 2004–05 FA Premier League). I guess a lot of the info on his article is stuff he attained from various news sources so it might be possible to utilize some of it. Or did you perhaps have in mind intend for a stand alone article?

Re Incubation Project: It is looking ike a really good idea to me. Looking through some of the articles in the process of incubation it seems like a lot of effort and work was put into them to get them saved. I hope that the project continues in this path. Is there a list somewhere of the articles successfully incubated (post-incubated?Hatched? :) ). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't look closely at the article, so I don't know whether it contains material best merged or qualifies as a standalone, but I thought the incubation might relieve the time pressure to make a decision. Regarding "Hatched" I think they are going with "Graduates". The project is only a few days old, I think there might be one graduate. There are plans to promote it more once they get their act together, and a list of graduates would be part of the process.--SPhilbrickT 13:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is fair enough. We will wait to see what he has to say about it (hopefully he will reply). Oh and re incubator: Thanks for the clarification! Yeah develop a few and publish them on the main space and then announce it, but yeah from what I am seeing so far it will end up being a rewarding project.Calaka (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

You broke several references in changing the ref format, so I reverted you. Please do not change citation styles in articles that are internally (mostly) consistent to another style, per WP:CITE. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, can you draft what the article would look like with the new ref style in a user subpage first? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

General response at the MJ talk page. I'm quite unhappy about the possibility that I broke any references, so I checked the latest version of my changes, clicked on every single footnote I changed, and followed the footnote to the ultimate source wherever possible. If the LDR style is breaking anything, I'm not seeing it. I'm using this in other places, so I'd really appreciate it if you could point out the problem.

I did test this out in a user subpage here, however, the emphasis in that experiment was addressing a situation where someone wanted several citation in a single footnote—that issue is a minor one in the MJ article.--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FEED

Just added to my watchlist. I guess the article wizard is having some effect! Thanks for the heads up. By the way, regarding your feedback on User:Darkreliant/Rose iverley, note Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Not yet published books. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up re not-yet-published books. I figured it must have been addressed, glad to see that my advice was consistent with the guideline. Thanks for adding the page to your watchlist, yes, the Article Wizard is working. I posted at the WP:NPP talk page looking for advice on how to get more eyes, but no response so far - if you have any other ideas, please let me know.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertised for help at Wikipedia:Community portal#Community bulletin board. If you want to edit the entry, go here. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that page looks familiar, but it wasn't on my radar. Will pay more attention to it.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

help at WP:FEED

sure thing. i'll try and keep my eye on it, and you can always tap my talk page if i forget and it gets slow again. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Guidance barnstar awarded!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Your commitment and work at WP:FEEDBACK and other help-related pages has been recognized and much appreciated ;) œ™ 05:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bayesian approach to the voices and such

Hello again! I've noticed your declared interest in Bayesian methods and like to know - maybe you've heard about such ideas and if yes, maybe you have an opinion concerning their validity. If not heard, maybe they will interest you. I myself have but a perfunctory knowledge of bayesian methods.. Best regards, --CopperKettle 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don’t have any experience with Bayesian methods in that field. My field is insurance, where Bayesian methods are critical. Having said that, I vaguely recall reading an article some years ago asserting that human behavior can be better explained by accepting Bayesian methods, than rejecting them. Just to be clear, I don’t mean accepting or rejecting Bayes Theorem, which is, I believe, universally accepted, but whether one accepts or rejects the idea that one can postulate a prior distribution, even one based upon little evidence. The Non-Bayesians (as I understand it) reject the idea as too subjective, while Bayesians freely accept the creation of prior distributions. The article I read essentially argued that human behavior is best explained by assuming that humans act as if creating prior distributions is acceptable. I don’t think it was a scientific article, probably something in the popular press, but based upon that very limited information, I’d think the premise in the article has promise. Thanks for pointing it out, I wish I could offer moreSPhilbrickT 15:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! --CopperKettle 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input

Thank you very much for your input. I was trying to write an Article about a surgery and I needed a link to different types of bone grafts. Thanks again. Your pal - BennyK95 - Talk 20:12, October 7 2009(UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on Developing a personalized welcome message generator

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks a lot for your feedback on Developing a personalized welcome message generator! I have made some clarifications in response and would really appreciate if you can comment on those when you have time. Wondrousrecall (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Than-n-n kyoo...IUFIWBimgaaigv

For the "cookie". Accept my most existent apologies for the possibly anti-climatic new messages bar you will have doubtless recieved upon signing into your account, only to be confronted with this most ungeneric, but nonetheless uninteresting, thankspam-related mmmesage. Really, accept them, or else, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary arrangement of pixels

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(see above), Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:I'll bite

Hi Sphilbrick. Sure, I'll be happy to share the answer to question 12. However, before I'd like to do that, I'm a bit curious, if I were to ask this question on your RfA, how would you answer? (It's possible to give a thorough answer in 2-3 sentences) -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A:The general rule is that a non-free image of a living person should not be used because, being living, there is the potential of obtaining a free image. Some exceptions exist, such as J.D. Salinger, as he is notoriously reclusive, so obtaining a free image is not just difficult, it is virtually impossible. However, while that exception exists, I personally do not find it persuasive. There's an irony if a person's decision to retreat from the public eye is used as an argument to increase his exposure to the public eye. I'll emphasize "personal", meaning that I would !vote this way in a debate about a proposed change to policy, but I would not remove such an image if community consensus concludes the usage is acceptable. I believe there is another category of exceptions, if the nature of the article requires a picture from a past time period, so a current photograph would not suffice, then a non-free image would be acceptable. Perhaps if the only notability is, for example, as a child actor, then a current photograph might not be useful for the article. However, I feel quite uncertain about this last argument, so I am expressing it as I vaguely recall it. I would not take any action as an admin on such a weak recollection of a rule, so I would review policy before making any decision and/or consult with another admin with more experience in this area.--SPhilbrickT 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a fairly solid answer Sphilbrick. If you're ever considering becoming a image sysop and are in need of an admin coach, I'm sold.

Rather than give a long-winded answer, I think it'd be fair to mention that ThaddeusB best sums up what I was going to say (see User talk:Fastily#I'll bite). Basically, non-free images of living persons can be used only under certain circumstances (i.e. when there is absolutely no free version in existence or when the omission of the image would be detrimental the a reader's understanding of the article - for instance, when the image is discussed in an article with commentary). More specifically, see WP:NFC#UULP. Long story short, yes, non-free images of living persons may be used but, even then, such is subjected to harsher restrictions and usage is to be determined on case-by-case basis. Hope that helps to answer your question. Best, FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 05:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I see WP:NFC#UULP, it rings a (faint) bell, I suspect that is what was rattling around in the back of my head, leading to my equivocal additional reason. I did take your suggestion and read ThaddeusB's answer. I remain troubled that we are dreaming up exceptions not necessarily grounded in fair use law. IANAL and while I have interest in IP issues, not a lot of experience. I just scanned fair use, and don't see a clear resolution to my concerns. I'll start paying more attention to fair use discussions; hopefully that will alleviate my concerns.--SPhilbrickT 12:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Josh Griffin

Greetings.

I noticed you commented on the Doug Fields 'articles for deletion' page and was wondering if you could also offer your opinion on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Griffin (youth pastor).

Thanks,

Flavius Constantine (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I did look at it—my initial conclusion is that it wasn't an clear-cut, but since you asked, I'll relook at it.--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Flavius Constantine (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you see that User:NuclearWarfare deleted the Doug Fields article with a 3-2 vote? He actually claimed consensus had been clearly reached. Can you believe that? Now, even I admitted that the Josh Griffin article was a debatable (even though I believed it was legit, considering the type of people who have Wiki articles), but surely Doug Fields' was completely legitimate. It had been up for nearly a year! And some administrator thinks he has the power to single-handidly choose what stays and what goes. I wrote to him and told him that I would be appealing his decision. Do you know how to do that, so that we can get other administrators to take a look at it.

Thanks,

Flavius Constantine (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LDR

In your comment [3] I changed LDR to WP:LDR (LDR is a disambig page). I hope you don't object to my editing your post in ths manner, it appeared to be a typo. RJFJR (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WBCA

Hi there. Hope all is well. Just wanted to thank you for creating the WBCA page. Your efforts are always appreciated! Maple Leaf (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me express my gratitude..

..for your contrubution to Reelin by starting the Russian page about the charming Tina Charles: Тина Чарльз. Best regards, --CopperKettle 18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you very much, that's a very nice gesture.--SPhilbrickT 00:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for answering my question about link rot that I asked in the help desk. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help--SPhilbrickT 19:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the edit

You are most welcome, Sphilbrick. Actually I haven't provide the appropriate guideline for the change. Here it's WP:LAYOUT, hope that would be helpful. Keep up the good work--Chanaka L (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulence: Ideas for Movement

You made some comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulence: Ideas for Movement which appear to refer to me. I should be very grateful if you would read my response there. Thnaks in advance. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Women's Basketball Coaches Association

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Women's Basketball Coaches Association, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks Victuallers (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Doug Fields deletion appeal

I have posted a deletion appeal for the Doug Fields article. I would greatly appreciate your input. Here's the link:Wikipedia:Deletion review.

I'm not sure when you came in with all of this, so here's the entire story. This article had been up for nearly a year, with not one complaint about notability. I attempted several times to add legit sources, but another user kept deleting most of them for some reason, and rather than get in an edit war, I decided to leave it with only a couple. Then, seeing only a couple sources, another user decided to recommend it for deletion, which User:NuclearWarfare did, with only an official 3-2 vote. In my opinion, he clearly overstepped his bounds, as a clear consensus had not been established.

How this is even being discussed is ridiculous to me, since in the entire field of youth ministry, Fields has been, without question, the most famous expert and author in the world for years - and it's not even close. When someone has over 50 published works with decent sales (as you pointed out), they are clearly notable. If we get some administrators to side with us, will you commit to adding more legitimate sources with me, if the article is reposted?

Thanks,

Flavius Constantine (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin activity

I'm afraid I was misunderstood that I have certain numerical evaluation of admin candidates (some do) - by no means no. I really do value the quality of edits. I should be more accurate in my RFA votes and discussions - that RFA vote of mine only expressed general concern about insufficient experience of the candidate, which I clumsily linked to numbers. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Color me confused

Um...wow, I really need to reread answers it seems >_< My reasoning was more per the candidate's then-answers to q6 and q11, both of which led me to believe he viewed the closing admin as basically the tiebreaker in a deadlocked XfD argument. Upon review of his answer to q10, though, it really leaves my oppose rationale in doubt; his analogy is the same one I made without me realizing he had said that. I'm confused now as to how he could answer q6 the way he did and then post that answer to q10, which is completely contradictory. Color me confused, as well, now, because I don't get it. --tennisman 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (PS: Sorry for the late response; I got caught in the H1N1 pandemic so I've been AWOL the past four days or so)

I certainly agree with you. Had it not been for questions 6 and 11, I would have readily supported and I think many others would have as well. Question 10, upon rereading, would seem to say that Sebwite has a decent idea of policy, but those other questions just can't be ignored. --tennisman 16:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CDA

Thanks for your note to me at my talk. You are right, and that was very helpful to bring that to my attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of references

Please don't rename references, from a format like YYYYMMDD to the D MMM format with spaces *Its better to state Reuters20091125, than "Reuters 25 Nov"? Nsaa (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is it better? Looks harder to read. Are you objecting to the spaces? If so why? And I've started a discussion on the talk page, that seems like a better place to discuss this. I'm very interested in making sure we use a common, consistent, understandable format, but I don't see the problem with what I'm doing. I think Reuters20091125, while understandable is ugly and harder to read than Reuters 25 Nov. --SPhilbrickT 14:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Nsaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nsaa (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you…

…for your kind words regarding Joe's RfB; they are greatly appreciated! -- Avi (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Thanks for the barnstar - it's always nice to know that one's contributions do not go unnoticed by one's fellow contributors! – ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trick thanks

Your comment at [4] was helpful, as the discussion was becoming a sterile dialogue. The image you remember was probably the cover of the WMO statement on the status of global climate in 1999[5]. There is a deeper issue as to whether the smoothed and truncated series shown in the scientific journals had also used something similar (hence the phrase "Mike's Nature trick") but that has only been discussed in the blogoshere (such as the end-point discussion at [6]) and so may not be suitable for Wikipedia. --Rumping (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the cover I was thinking about. And you are right, that the notable email is about whether that trick might be used elsewhere, but short of a smoking gun, we don't know that how or even whether the trick was used again.SPhilbrickT 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Basket of Puppies

Hi SPhil - thanks for your note. I didn't see your original message to Puppies until I checked out his talk page this morning (I'd glanced at it before but was really looking at random contribs etc and didn't see much activity there so left it be). Anyway, I'm pleased someone else got it but if the hivemind over at RfA doesn't give a toss, what can I do? Only now...check out the msg that has appeared below your 2nd one on my talk page. User:SparksBoy got his knickers in such a twist over my unconscionable hounding of Puppies that he not only promptly deletedfuckingeverything all of a sudden - despite not having contributed at the RfA at all - but was moved enough to refer to the incident in the first person. SPA quack? I've pointed it out at the afforementioned hugbox but I could not care less what happens now. He'll be back in 3 months, will collect just enough asspats to get the crown he evidently desires so desparately and there you go. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I responded, possibly a waste of time as he is retired, but made me feel better :) --SPhilbrickT 14:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - you put it very well. Maybe Puppies could use the advice too? Your follow-up point is taken but I'm really not so sure what to make of all this....the style and attention to detail etc just ain't Sparky's usual. But I'm definitely goig to keep that bawww - put it on my user page in a frame I think. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, Bite

Re, your message, you are wrong. If you took the time to read the MfD, you would see that people tried explaining things to him, but basically it seems he doesn't really want to listen. Vir asked him several times to remove the quotes, and he refused, mocking them. How would you like it, if I took several things you said, out of context, posted them to my userpage, and said they were amusing? How would you like it, if, after you requested I remove said quotes, I denied your request, several times.

Secondly, as has been told to this user many times during the MfD, if this list of misdeeds is not going to be used for an RfC, it should be deleted, as the userspace is not the place for this kind of thing. It is for the improvement of the encyclopedia, not vengeance against a user that wronged you. It doesn't matter if the user isn't named at the moment, Vir was still named in the beginning, and the quotes, named are not, are still Vir's. You may not think that this is a list of misdeeds, but it is; it is a list of demeaning statements made by a specific user, taken out of context or no. Several other users have tried explaining this to the user in question, but he seems to not understand that such things are not allowed. The fact that I was initially wrong in my nomination in the mfd is irrelevant; we have policy on such things, and that policy is that if the page containing the misdeeds is not being used for an RfC(the user said it wasn't and he has no plans to pursue such a thing), then it has no place on wikipedia.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You and I see it very differently. I wrote a long response, but decided to can it. I hope Drolz decides to stay, but I won't be surprised if this rude treatment turns him off.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sphilbrick-- wanted to say I appreciate your recent messages on my talk page. As always, you are a voice of reason among... less reasonable voices. Honestly I do believe that Jehochman's behavior warrants sanction, even though I am not at all confident he will get it. But it isn't really in my nature to back down when threatened, as anyone who read my talk page during the block incident can see. Drolz⁰⁹ 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

My ArbCom responses

Well, I would own up to a typo, but since you've given me the out of an extremely subtle joke, we'll go with that. Maybe if you weren't such an ignorant cur, you'd get it. Ahem. In summary, I'm outstanding at clear communication. Steve Smith (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Google hits

Please note WP:GOOGLE. Basically the numbers that Google gives are pretty random. If you work your way through, you'll find that there are actually 761 hits for watergate, and 671 for climategate. Guettarda (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So two weeks in and climategate is neck and neck with watergate? It will be ahead in a few days, and while the cycle is quicker, will blow watergate away. I aslo recognize there is watergate material that was never indexed by Google, but climategate will be far bigger in terms of material, and political influence.

I don't know if you saw that conversation, but Tony Sidaway gets about as many google hits as Climategate (639 vs. 671). Bloggers and current news stories don't talk about Watergate. That's all the numbers say. Not that Tony Sidaway is almost as big as Watergate. Guettarda (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed it, thanks for pointing it out. Watergate was a fairly important issue in the US, with ripples elsewhere, just because of the big US footprint, but not a major event elsewhere. In contrast, global warming, by very definition, is a world-wide issue. To the extent that questions are being raised, and prompted by Climategate, affecting literally trillions of dollars of spending, I think it is possible historian will conclude Climategate and the related fallout will be a bigger event. Or maybe I'm too close to it and it's much less important that I think, and will be a trivia question for future generations. Too early to tell.SPhilbrickT 16:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I would say the likelihood of that happening is approaching zero. Watergate was huge for many reasons, and the sheer number of scholarly papers, books, and articles on the subject outweighs anything we have on the CRU incident, which for all intents and purposes was a non-event. I'm not clear on how you could even compare the release of e-mails with the arrest of five men for breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters, the conspiracy of President Nixon's staff to cover it up, the resulting investigation by the FBI which linked the funding of the crime to the President, and the subsequent resignation of the 37th U.S. President, Richard Nixon. In fact, I do not see a single thing in common with these two events, one of which changed history, the other which has resulted in no change whatsoever, and is basically a non-event. Can you see the problem here? You say it is too early to tell, but it is clearly not. We can tell right now which event had more impact in the world, and we can tell by going back to the original sources, which event had more impact when it occurred. There is no comparison. And, I have no idea how you are searching for "Watergate", but Google News gives 280,000 hits,[7] Google Books returns 10,669,[8] and Google Scholar 41,500.[9] Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be forgetting that, two weeks into the Watergate scandal, it was almost a non-event. There was only one newspaper covering it at first, and it took months for it to turn into a major US story. Nixon was re-elected in one of the largest landslides ever—five months after the event. Will Climategate turn out to be as momentous? Probably not, but it is too early to tell. I note the WP entry on Watergate doesn't have a timeline, I think we should start one for Climategate.--SPhilbrickT 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the FBI investigation began on the day of the crime, and news of the arrest was broadcast on the nationally televised evening news. Reporters met with White House press secretary Ron Ziegler just two days later, and Ziegler tried to dismiss the incident as a "third rate burglary". According to Kutler (1992), there was a "growing publicity about the affair" just days after it occurred. From the beginning, local outlets carried reports on the FBI's investigation, and press briefings were stonewalled by Ziegler, who at one point responded to an astounding 29 questions about Watergate with "no comment". CBS "devoted extensive attention to Watergate" sometime in October. This was never a "non-event" at any time, so I question the historical accuracy of your statement. Yes, it is true that the media dropped the ball. Greenberg (2004) writes that the media was intimidated with "threats to discontinue television licenses, the freezing out of reporters, the investigations into Schorr, Newsday and others - all had a chilling effect." Most notable was the failure of The New York times, with reporter Tad Szulc blaming anti-Castro forces for the burglary, helping Nixon cover up for himself, albeit indirectly. So it was a complete and total failure of the media at every level. Except, that is, for two reporters who did their job. Dan Rather observed, "The brutal truths of the Watergate story continued to be broken not by television or by the White House press corps, but by a pair of mavericks from the police beat: Woodward and Bernstein." These two reporters successfully connected the burglars to the Nixon White House, but they were alone. Greenberg notes that of the 1200 correspondents in Washington that summer, only 20 pursued the story. As for its importance to the timeline, look at the AP U.S. History Exam test preparation study guide. The period of 1972-2005 is significantly titled, ""Watergate, Conservatism's Rise, and Post-Cold War Challenges". There are only three events listed for U.S. history in 1972: 1) The Watergate break-in, 2) The defeat of McGovern by Nixon, and 3) The mining of Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam. Now look at 1973 and 1974. The significance of Watergate in U.S. history is immense. How could you possibly compare it to something like the CRU incident, a non-event if there ever was one? Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read your own post, which supports my point as well, or better than I did. "From the beginning, local outlets carried...". "CBS 'devoted extensive attention to Watergate' sometime in October." In other words, local at first (compared to world-wide coverage for Climategate), and coverage broader than the Post in October, four months later. Let's see what Climategate looks like four months out. Just to be clear, so there is no confusion, I predict it won't be as big. I'm on the side of those who oppose renaming the article to Climategate. My only point is that the dismissal of those who argue in favor is not the slam dunk some claim.--SPhilbrickT 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The story broke on national television, as far as I can tell from the sources. You do have a good point (but you make it indirectly) about how the story almost got buried, but it was reported at the time around the country. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Re: attack pages

Re, your message, I believe that page should either be deleted, or should have the specific attacks targeting specific users deleted. As this page only serves to call people foolish and cowards, and call them on edits, I do not see how it is helping WP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

The enquirer has started a section at Talk:William Harvey#Proposed Recasting ( Dec. 2009 ), so we can see what happens. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Now you've gone over the line. Making shit up like that is totally out of line. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?!? What on earth are you talking about? I don't "make up shit" and I don't appreciate being accused of such action. Please take a few minutes to calm down, then try and explain rationally what you are talking about. The odd thing is, the last post I had composed was "I'm happy is we agree", but I hadn't had a chance to post it. It appears we may not agree, but I'm not clear what your issue may be.--SPhilbrickT 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You said "There is NO source backing up the claim that the files were stolen, other than the COI paraphrase from the CRU". This was an obvious falsehood, since there are many reliable sources that support the claim. You were active at the main CRU hacking article, you know that. Pretending that sources that aren't on that page don't exist is simple disruption. Wikipedia is, after all, hypertext. That's one of the organising principles of the encyclopaedia, and has been from day 1. Claiming "if it's not on the page it doesn't count" is classic tendentious editing. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I first thought you misunderstood my reasoning, but your closing sentence implies that you have figured it out. However, when viewing something in an article that is not supported by the cited sources, each editor has a number of options. The most common one is to do nothing, and let someone else address it. Another option is to add a "citation needed" template. Another option is to go search for a source that will verify the statement. And another option is to modify the statement to be compliant with the existing source. I reject the notion that the last option is disruption.

We both know that guiding principle for WP is verifiability, rather than truth. I endorse that principle. However, given a choice between a statement that is possibly false but verifiable, and a statement that is certainly true while verifiable, I have no problem opting for the verifiable and certainly true statement. You are perfectly free to go for the alternative, but I reject your contention that I am obligated to do the same, and anything else is disruption.--SPhilbrickT 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to thank-you for taking some time, then responding. Do we agree that I wasn't making up shit or spouting falsehoods; it comes down to a difference of opinion over how an editor should address an improperly referenced sentence in an article? --SPhilbrickT 18:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A weird revision

Sphilbrick, I want to draw your attention to this edit [10] which apparently was made by me. The explanation was "(Reverted 1 edit by Sphilbrick identified as vandalism to last revision by Dhatfield. (TW))". I never intended to revert your edit. I honestly don't know what happened. At 5:30 Christmas eve, I was eating dinner with my family. I know I checked the discussion that evening with my iPhone. I don't know if I accidentally clicked on Undo, but I don't even use WP:T. It's either that, or my account has been compromised, but this seems unlikely. Anyway, I never intended to revert your edit or accuse you of vandalism. You have my sincere apologies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I think you cleared up a mystery for me. I saw Tony note of the omission of a paper; I added it, but I didn't want someone seeing it on my page and wondering why Tony said it was missing, so I tried editing my comment to include the mention - but when I tried to edit, my comment wasn't there. I couldn't figure out why, and didn't think to check the edit history. We had 25 for dinner who were just showing up, so I wasn't able to look into it, and just didn't worry about it. Later , I made my edit, but didn't have time to track down why my post was temporarily missing. Thanks again for explaining, yet another good example why AGF is a good policy:)--SPhilbrickT 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Johnson

I think you were misreading the references at Andy Johnson (basketball). The claim you removed was not being supported by the linked New York Times article, but by a review in the magazine SLAM. It's a print source, but you can probably find a copy of the issue in your local bookstore right now, if you want to check it out for yourself. There's also a site for the book here, which gives you some idea what the author of the book is trying to argue. Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I clicked on wrong link. Sorry. I even reread it twice to see if I missed someone, but missed that I had wrong ref.--SPhilbrickT 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

user name

Upon reflection, I would be willing to accept the user name D8.99.D6.59, which according to this, is a section by section conversion of 216.153.214.89 from decimal to hexidecimal. If you think I can have this user name, I will apply for it. Let me know. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)