User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 37

AFD (2nd nomination)

Hi. Can you explain to me how to re-nominate an article for deletion (i.e. a 2nd time), after the first AFD was done a long time ago? Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not the best resource. I've only nominated a couple, and I needed help when I did. I've never done a second nomination, I would have thought it would be the same process. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanford

Sorry about that.

I removed Kokenis from the roster, because of her retirement, but then I realized she is still on the roster. I looked to make sure i got her back in, and missed I lost the coaches, and flipped first and last.

I think I've fixed it now, although I still would like to know the status of Kokenis, regarding whether she is a walk-on or on scholarship.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Glad you are working on this stuff. I've added the new assistant coach (found on gostanford.com) and fixed Amy Tucker's link. Also, linked to Chiney Ogwumike. . .

Jwy Looks like we are collaborating well. They must have just added the assistant, she wasn't there when I first pulled the list. But it is Tempie, not Temple. I glanced at the list to see if any were likely to be linkable, and should not have missed Chiney.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the spellcheck! Also explains something. I expected you to be editing up a storm on Chiney's page - but I guess you hadn't seen it yet! Could use more on her international experience, etc. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I will add more, you are right, I hadn't seen it before.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The case

(Ignore if you don't feel like it, but I encourage reading.) For no help (too late) but support: follow the link on top of my user and sign under "Continued collaboration". Once there, don't miss the link to "peace and reconciliation". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox case, when a fifth arb voted to ban Andy (on very questionable findings), I installed a petition for continued collaboration with him, which can simply be signed, hoping to help. Shortly afterwards, a sixth voted to ban, so no more help. But support would still help me - a bit. As said before, the link is on top of my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you've been working hard to build bridges, and for that I applaud you. However, I fear that Andy just doesn't get it. Silktork weighed the evidence, reached a conclusion that the evidence supported a site-ban, and was clearly unhappy with that conclusion. In an attempt to find an alternative, Silktork threw out the idea of a suspended site-ban, which might pick up the votes of those arbs who favored a ban, while saving Andy. I thought it was an intriguing idea. A sensible person would embrace the lifeline. Instead, Andy inexplicably chose to debate and challenge and bring up other issues. Silktork then threw up hands and supported ban. I don't think Andy yet understands he just dug his own grave.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not the right person and don't have the language for the politics. The irony that SilkTork chose as an example my "own" article where Andy helped me to get the infobox that I wanted and still didn't get is great, - looks more like I dug his - how did you call that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Another irony is tat I sympathize with Andy's observation—that he was been the brunt of some less than ideal language, yet that hasn't been taken up. However, there is a time and place for such a statement, and his timing couldn't have been worse. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

After proceedings for which kafkaesque is an understatement, they found a way out, or should I say he, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting, and I hadn't see it, Gerda, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

ZYCUS

We created a company page for zycus which was accepted on June 15, 2013. And on August 28, 2013 it was deleted for this reason (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page). can you please explain how can we make improvements and get started and avoid any further deletions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rima.sharma (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Sphilbrick. Moved this from the top of your talk-page. The article wasn't flagged for deletion from what I can see. No copyvio problems that I identify.

Hi! I'll move it into your userspace, rima.sharma. Just a note, though: you wrote "We created a company page for zycus... " Please remember that you must edit Wikipedia as an individual, not on behalf of any other person or on behalf of an organization. This might lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia and/or anything you have written being deleted. Pete in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Zycus

I can't see the Zycus page back. I am new to this and it would be great if you could help me find a solution to put it up again? thanks. (Rima.sharma (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Rima.sharma, all fixed, and explained at your talk page. FYI, when you add a note to a talk page, please add it to the bottom. Simply click on "new section" and that will automatically place it in the right location.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rima.sharma and Sphilbrick. I've had a little look into why the article was deleted in the first place - Creation by a banned user? Unambiguous copyright violation? Unambiguous advertising or promotion? - and have come to the conclusion that I don't know why the article was deleted in the first place. Please feel free to Facepalm. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I explained what I think happened at Rima.sharma's talk.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

TPm moderated discussion

I just wanted to let you know that ST undertook a good faith effort to moderate that discussion, but basically, he wasn't aware of the fact that he was wading into a pool full of venomous vipers, and he was not disposed to put as much time as would have been required t fully contain the behavioral issues that ensued even with him as moderator. The bottom line is that some of these articles are out of control, and policy enforcement, and/or policy creation and revision is not keeping abreast of the scenario.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

While I haven't waded into it, I've heard positive comments about the outcome. My current interest is in process, not so much the content. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this is probably related to that interest insofar as it was sort of an attempt to append a new stage to proceedings. Although it was a noble attempt, it failed. I suppose it's relationship to process is at issue, insofar as many of the diffs cited in the FoF of newly added parties are derived from the Moderated discussion, but I would be ill disposed toward seeing it as an a priori fault in process. It is just an attempt that proved to not be compatible with the current process regime.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think i should modify the above reference to "append" to "intercede", as one premise was that if the moderated discussion succeeded, the case would be dismissed. Maybe there was a sort of group-therapy dimension to it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My current open question is much narrower. I note that we have a concept called Mediation. I am unclear whether the moderated discussion was a mediation. I confess one reason for wondering is that mediation proceedings are not supposed to be used in Arbcom (with some exceptions), but my main interest relates to the desire to have a moderated discussion option within Wikipedia, and I want to start by understanding what we already have.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've now been informed that it was not a mediation, so the restrictions on the use of mediation material do not appear to apply.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

ST's initiative was geared at editor retention, the way I see it. As he mentioned on his Talk page, he prefers facilitating collaboration than meting out discipline.

Unfortunately, there are problems with COI on Wikipedia, etc, and these issues are not all amenable to touchy-feely solutions.

Although I haven't broached the possibility before, this case provides the opportunity for a hypothetical scenario. Supposing that the Koch brothers, to whommoney is no object, have some funds allocated in their PR efforts that include Wikipedia. Well, such editors are not going to be amenable to reason, because they would be being paid not to be reasonable.

That is simply a hypothetical case that makes it clear that Wikipedia has to have strictly enforced sourcing policies, otherwise even an Arbcom police state will fail.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The ideas I'm mulling aren't touchy-feely, almost the reverse. They would allow, with some careful restrictions, ruthless removal of material in a moderated discussion. I have other thoughts on how to make sure that doesn't overdo the concept, but I (possibly naively) think it would work well in the face of paid editors attempting to impose a POV.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I thin you're on the right track. I was more referring to ST's attempt, though I didn't mean to denigrate in any way, just to express my impression that COI editors would a priori not be amenable to such an approach.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I believe you understand the gist of the ArbCom proceedings <g> Collect (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't yet decided whether to be discouraged about the process problems, or to treat it as a challenge. I'm trying to be positive, but that's a lot easier to do when one isn't staring at a ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque vale

Barring any commonsense acts now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No, this cannot stand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd, and sad timing, as I just spent the last half hour reading about the retirement of User:Smerus, and in the course of reading that, learning that Ched is gone, and WilliamH. Now this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Odd? I just read the Smerus "finding of fact" and sanction - "odd" is the very last word I would use here. It would be interesting to see ArbCom discipline everyone who has said "do not feed the trolls" (or its template) on Wikipedia ... it looks like "decision first, then find something to hang it on", even if it is a skyscraper made of balsa wood and Scotch tape. Collect (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Odd" only in the sense that I'm literally reading about one resignation when I see your post, and AFAIK, you have no material involvement in the infobox issue. However, there is a common denominator of ArbCom.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As in "lowest common denominator"? <g> Collect (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I just commented at Jimbo's page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar! With the orphaned talk pages and the seemingly never ending collection of abandoned AfCs, I think I've worn out my mouse button. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sitting down? The AfC open count is down from 64,000 to....drum roll... 60,000. We're not quite done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the number a few days ago, got completely depressed, and swore I would never look at it again. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

13.72 billion years as opposed to 13.72 billion light years ...

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_common_misconceptions&diff=571820918&oldid=571815441

Actually I am not making the mistake you think I am. This is a page about misconceptions; the point I am making, therefore, is exactly the thing you thought you were pointing out to me.  :) I want to add a section to this page suggesting that many people make the mistake of thinking that since the Universe is 13.72 billion years old, that the light we see from the earliest formations in the Universe have traveled 13.72 billion light years (in a sense it has ...) and that therefore the size of the universe is 13.72 billion light years. The errors I made here are examples of errors I think that people in general make.

Qed (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OK --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Lee Bracegirdle / James Chambers

Hello Sphilbrick,

You wrote: 'You've worked extensively on Lee Bracegirdle. However, the original article was a copypaste or paraphrase of a source not properly licensed for our use. Light copy edits do not remove the problem. See Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE for more information, or ask me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)'

Hello Sphilbrick, re- Lee Bracegirdle

Yes I have worked on this page, and I have noticed so have others, and using Wikipedia's guidelines have gradually and carefully got rid of paraphrasing. But how many ways can one re-phrase, for example, "so-and-so was born in New York"? All the information for that page about this eminent person was carefully gathered (and I can see, I might add, also edited by others over a long period) and you have with one stroke of a pen deleted all of it. There was nothing in that article that is not already in the public domain, and it had all been re-phrased. There was complete in-line citation work and clear referencing done, and it was all done according to Wikipedia's guidelines. So I would ask you to please restore the entire article as it was, otherwise myself and all of the others who have worked on it will have to start again, and go through the entire re-phrasing process again.

After this information has been restored, I would welcome you to get back to me about specific items with which you have an issue. I would like to move on to making other contributions and related articles.

Thanks

Impressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

With reference to the article on James Chambers, yes there are only a few places where this information is available, but this is all in the public domain as well. It would be difficult to re-phrase this very basic information, which has already been repeated in many references.

Please re-instate this article as well and ask specific questions about issues you may have in it. Thanks

Impressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Impressionistic (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• The argument that there are only so many ways to rephrase a point is often made, but rarely convincing. However, while I don't disagree that it might be challenging to rewrite "so-and-so was born in New York", the article wasn't deleted because of a five word phrase matching.
• Many editors start with a copy paste of material subject to copyright, and then " gradually and carefully got rid of paraphrasing". This is poor practice. Our rules against include copyright violations applies to every version in the history, as well as the current version. I spent time yesterday, with an article which followed that exact process. In my view, the current version was OK, but I had to take the time to remove form view all the prior versions.
• You mention material in the public domain. Can you be more explicit? The article I removed was a close paraphrase of a site which i believed not be be in the public domain. If I erred, I want to know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello SPhilbrick, I added a long comment with suggestions and more questions to this section, and I thought I saved it, but it doesn't seem to be here. Are you able to retrieve it from the edits, or do I need to start it again? Impressionistic (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there is only one edit since my past edit and it is the one you just added. Just FYI, never type anything int he edit box you are willing to lose. Write in an editor and copy paste. That's what I do for anything over a sentence.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I think I forgot to “sign” it.

Yes, we could talk for hours over a bottle of red wine about public domain vs. copyrighted material. The history of music is riddled with contentious cases. We need only look at the furore around 10 years ago with the song “My Aiky-Breaky-Heart” / or the recent litigation against the band Men at Work having used 4 bars of “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree” in their song “A Land Down Under” thinking it was a folk song in the public domain, only to be hit with a bill 20 years later from the estate of the lady (long dead) who originally wrote the Kookaburra song. When Brahms finally penned his 1st symphony at age 40, critics and publishers crowed that he had plagiarized a melody from Beethoven's 9th. Brahms' reply was “any donkey can hear the similarity – wake up, it's an homage to him!” / Stravinsky re-orchestrated his own Firebird Suite when the copyright was about to run out, just so that he could earn more money from it (yes, he lived long enough) - and I often wonder what the estate of Gustav Holst thinks of all the Hollywood film composers who have lifted entire passages straight out of his suite “The Planets”.

But I am digressing.... I see some dictionary definitions of 'public domain' as: “the realm embracing property rights that belong to the community at large, are unprotected by copyright or patent, and therefore are subject to appropriation by anyone” / also: “the status of a published work or invention upon which the copyright or patent has expired or which has not been patented or subject to copyright. It may thus be freely used by the public” / and: “property rights that are held by the public at large” (Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, Dictionary.die.net respectively).

In the music industry in order for something to be under copyright it must have the symbol © at the bottom of the page (or at least the first page), and should be registered with a government body such as the U.S. Library of Congress, or with a publisher. In the old days people often used the so-called “poor man's copyright”: you put a copy in an envelope and mail it to yourself. The date on the postmark was enough to ensure copyright, but there was one hitch: you could only use it once – at the moment of opening the envelope (presumably in front of the judge).

Looking at the material that was used in these other websites you have mentioned as matching or being paraphrased, all of this information appears to be in the public domain, since it is “unprotected by copyright or patent, and therefore subject to appropriation by anyone”. As to any question of the validity of the sources, I can verify that the source “C.F. Peters” is and has been one of the most prestigious publishers of classical music for more than 200 years, and it is the brief of Peters to protect the copyright of the composed material itself, not the information in their website. This also applies to the material at the website of Australian Music Centre, as they have put all bio information out in the public domain in order to strengthen saleability of their represented composers' works. They also only guard the copyrights of the composed material, not the publicly available data. Other sources that were used, i.e. the Juilliard Journal (a newspaper) and recordings by the Australian Broadcasting Corp are also available for the public to visit, buy and quote.

Would it be more acceptable to Wikipedia if I and others that have worked on this article were to gather the information and boil it down to just lists of positions, achievements, etc, - in other words remove the prose altogether - and then re-name the sources?

As pertains to the article about James Chambers (source: The International Horn Society), would it help if I were to get written permission from their person responsible for legal issues to re-use the bio that is on their website? This might take a while, since everyone I try to contact in the US seems to be away on summer holidays.

Impressionistic (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. I did not any of that history of the music anecdotes you mentioned. The planets is on of my favorites—I was mentally compiling a list of my top five songs, and I considered The Planets, but it didn't make the final cut.

However, I'm sorry to report that some of you information about copyright is not quite right. For example, see [[Poor man's copyright], an article needing some work, but it illustrates that the technique isn't useful.

As for your contention that music needs a ©, that used to be true, but is not longer true. See Copyright where it is noted that in 1989 the US adopted the Berne Convention. The requirement no longer existed in other countries earlier, when they adopted the convention.

Regarding your suggestion that you simply distill down to lists of facts, you should not need to go that far. I'll copy below some general advice that I give in similar situations: However, it is my opinion that the results constitute a Close paraphrasing of the original. I've found that if I copy and paste the material, and try to rewrite it, that it still ends up too close to the original. A better approach is to find more than one source (always desirable), then, put them aside, and write about the subject in one's own words. After writing, return to the original text, and determine whether it is too close (if you have a better memory than I do), or if some points would be better made by an explicit quote and attribution, with the quote suitably short.

You will have a challenge if you have only a single source to work with, but it is still possible to avoid close paraphrasing. Alternatively, yes, you could arrange for permission. I've done that on many occasions for images. It is a bit of work, and challenging, because they cannot just release it for Wikipedia, they have to provide a broader release. See Donating copyrighted materials for more details.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Another little anecdote you would enjoy, or maybe already know about, is the case of the descendants of the composer Rachmaninov, and I have noticed that it directly applies to a part of that Berne Convention. The convention states: "...that all works except photographic and cinematographic shall be copyrighted for at least 50 years after the author's death, but parties are free to provide longer terms." The family descendants (Rachmaninov's estate) tried to get this 50 year period extended when the time was coming up so they could continue raking in royalties. It must have been back in the 90s, since Rachmaninov died in the 1940s. I didn't follow it so I don't know the outcome of the case.

About the James Chambers article, I have indeed received an email reply from the International Horn Society about quoting their material. I realize that anyone could make up an email, but this letter includes their contact details in case you want to verify it. This man is their editor and also handles their legal matters:

   "To Whom it May Concern:

As the editor of The Horn Call and supervisor of our website we are always pleased that our printed articles and online articles are read and used by others in their research and articles. All we ask, of course, is that the selected passages are exactly as printed and clearly shown (italics, indention, bold, different font, etc.) and the source is clearly cited.

Regards, William Scharnberg, editor of The Horn Call Regents Professor of Music (horn), University of North Texas, Denton, TX wscharn@music.unt.edu or hornprof@gmail.com "

Let me know if this is acceptable to Wiki Impressionistic (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I haven't heard from you since my last post on this(just above). Can you get back to me about this permission? Thanks, Impressionistic (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mentally composed a response, then got interrupted and forgot to come back. Will try again now (in minutes).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as noted at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, when material is donated it is

...subject to continuous editing by the Wikipedia community. It may be added to, subtracted from, rearranged, illustrated, split into multiple articles, translated into other languages, and otherwise changed beyond your expectations

which is the exact opposite of their permission.

I briefly considered that there may be a way to make this work. It is already acceptable to quote brief passages of material under fair use provisions of the law. Wikipedia generally takes a conservative approach; so, for example, if the law might allow a medium sized paragraph to be used, we might insist that an editor cut it down to a sentence or two, simply because we do not wish to be in a court arguing about fair use, even if we win. The clear intention of the permission statement might mean that we could include, in quotes, or otherwise clearly marked to clarify that it is the words of others, longer passages than we would otherwise permit. However, the challenge to this approach is that we make our product available to others under a Creative Commons license which gives them the right to edit it themselves. While it would not be ethical for someone to remove quotes or change material in quotes, it would not, as far as I know, violate the license. Therefore the entity giving the permission to Wikipedia may balk if they understand that a subsequent re-user can make further edits.

Another issue, even if the above is resolved, is that we want Wikipedia articles to be the product of independent editors. If it is too much a product of someone else, who may not be following our requirement for a neutral point of view, for example, it will not be a suitable Wikipedia article. That said, the use of quotes will make it clear what material is in the voice of a Wikipedia editor, and what is in the voice of others, and if properly balanced, may be acceptable.

I would love it if we could find a way to use more of the the material than we might otherwise based upon fair use. However, I am in new territory here, so want to get some feedback from our real copyright expert.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but Sphilbrick is right - our copyright policy is pretty clear on this point, as it says that "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license" and "If you want to import media (including text) that you have found elsewhere, and it does not meet the non-free content policy and guideline, you can only do so if it is public domain or available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." You can read the non-free content policy and guideline at WP:NFC - I'm afraid it limits us to brief quotations of copyrighted text. Of course, we can use brief quotations from the source in accordance with this, but the bulk of it must be written in original language that meets our license. As Sphilbrick explains, this facilitates reuse elsewhere. One of our missions is to create educational content that can be used anywhere by anyone for any purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick and also thank you Moonriddengirl for these clarifications. Over the next month or so I'll find the time to gather information beginning with that source, but rather use my own words to start up a new article. As you have hinted at, I'll then go about encouraging others I know in the industry to take it upon themselves to add and edit. Regards, Impressionistic (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that. Good luck.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I started an attempt to contribute to this, but noticed that the entire article, including the title has been deleted ("James Chambers (horn player)"). Could you (or another admin person) reinstate the article (blank) so that we can just access it and contribute/edit? Impressionistic (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done See User:Impressionistic/James Chambers (horn player)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Impressionistic (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Db-g13 template modification

Collapsing large, now stale discussion

Hey there, since you seem to be doing most of the CSD:G13 deleting... What do you think of the modifications I've made (more similar ones on the way) to the {{Db-g13}} template? Do you like the new color coded section in the middle? If the box is green, then it meets the CSD:G13 requirments - if it is yellow, then the parameter (the timestamp of the edit before the tagging) was missing and you'll have to confirm its age yourself - if it is red, then it is less than six months old and is not eligible (it will automatically update itself to green when it becomes eligible). Technical 13 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I love the concept, and I am glad that you pointed it out. I have a process when reviewing these, which starts by looking to see if it was created by Hasteurbot (in which case I can do rare spot checks of the time, as the bot has been 100% correct so far). If by someone else, I handle it differently. To be honest, I was so focused on identifying the tagger, I missed the significance of the new color coding. Now that I know about it, I can incorporate it into my process. Thanks Technical 13 --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Do you have any requests or suggestions for improvements? I would be happy to incorporate them. :) Technical 13 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Two thoughts popped into my head, nothing major, and the better of the two I now see you've effectively done. I like to look a little closer at the submissions whose age is between 6 and 12 months. Over that, and I barely need to look at it. However, while thinking how to ask for that, I realize you not only color code, but add in the date of the prior edit. So the information is there. If it were easy to tweak, I would change It MAY qualify to be deleted per CSD:G13 as the edit before that was May 8, 2010. to It MAY qualify to be deleted per CSD:G13 as the edit before that was May 8, 2010. which exceeds 39 months Then if I see a value between 6 and 12, I can give a little more scrutiny. Second, I wish there were a way to see more on the content on the page. 90% of the submissions contain no more than a paragraph, and it often fully fits on the screen. In some cases, there are enough maintenance templates on the screen, that the actual content requires scrolling down to see. I confess I do not always do that, and I fear I may miss a real article that got mistagged. Addressing this fully probably means collapsing or removing maintenance templates below the CSD notice, and that sounds like an invitation for trouble, so my simpler suggestion is that you make the CSD G13 template as "short" as possible, so it doesn't take up too much real estate. For example, rather than this : This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation page that has not been edited in over six months. This only applies to pages that contain an Articles for creation template or are located in the Articles for creation namespace. See CSD G13. If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. If you plan to improve this draft, simply edit this page and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion This draft was nominated by [[User:|]] on September 7, 2013. It MAY qualify to be deleted per CSD:G13 as the edit before that was May 8, 2010. Consider checking Google: web, news. This page was last edited at 14:13 UTC (0 seconds ago) Please consider placing the template: {{subst:Db-afc-notice|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jason Gharib|header=1}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the author. What if it looked like this: This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation page that has not been edited in over six months. This only applies to pages that contain an Articles for creation template or are located in the Articles for creation namespace. See CSD G13. If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. If you plan to improve this draft, simply edit this page and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. It MAY qualify to be deleted per CSD:G13 as the edit before that was May 8, 2010. Consider checking Google: web, news. With a collapsed box: For admins This page was last edited at 14:13 UTC (0 seconds ago) Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion This draft was nominated by [[User:|User:]] on September 7, 2013. Please consider placing the template: {{subst:Db-afc-notice}} SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC) on the talk page of the author. I was intending to add some kind of "Age in blah" statistic... "Months" is kind of tricky because not all months have the same number of days. I was considering days, weeks, or years but am not opposed to giving months a try. As for the second thought of yours. That is already a project underway... See: https://github.com/WPAFC/submission-template/tree/Multiple-submissions for my proposed fix for this "issue". Technical 13 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Unlike the determination of meeting the criteria (six months) which I want to make sure is met, not almost met, the age can be approximate. I'd be fine with a decimal year, so if it said "approximately 1.3 years" or "approximately 0.6 years" where you calculate years by days/182.625 (or whatever the right value is), I would think it would be close enough. The determination of qualification has to be right, the determination of age is a rough guide, I just want to know whether it has just tipped over into the six month period, or if it is years old.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC) That I can do tonight... The multiple submissions thing is a fairly large scale project I've been working in for awhile, and expect to have more time for it in a month or so. Technical 13 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Please do the multiple submissions thing only if you can justify it for other reasons, it only helps me a little, and my needs don't justify much work, but I wanted to mention it to give you a sense of how I see things.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)