User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 4

Thanks for the note

My apologies on the mis-attribution (I've since fixed it) -- I tend to skim over the debates on those talk pages these days because of their length and repetitiveness. Anyway, thanks for the note. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - UPDATE

Hi Sphilbrick - Thanks for your notes. I'm working on becoming better at this. Your points are helping me to become a much better Wiki writer, so much appreciated.

My updates are listed in BOLD in your above review. Can you check my page again? Hopefully I made appropriate adjustments. I also changed some wording throughout to make it sound more like it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - UPDATE

Thanks Sphilbrick - I look forward to your Friday review! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indital - Follow Up

Thanks again for your awesome feedback. It's really helping me to understand how Wikipedia works. I would like to have the orphan tag removed since it makes it look like an incomplete article, but I'm having some issues trying to find appropriate Wiki pages that are appropriate to link to Indital. If I wrote a blurb on some Wikipedia pages that source the products they carry (Newels, Balusters, etc.) that said something to the effect of, "A person can find balusters at hardware stores and construction outlets. Many design companies also sell Balusters online. Indital (link to Wiki page) carries Balusters and other design items." - Would this take the orphan tag away?

Any other recommendations to remove this tag are welcomed.Jmlnarik01 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlnarik01 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some thoughts (nothing great), but I'm in an intense 3 day meeting, will try to respond Thursday.--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John Wall (electronic composer) feedback

Belated thanks for your useful advice on getting this entry reviewed. This was on 22 April, but I've only just discovered it today. Still getting used to checking My Talk regularly... --PressedBack (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at 98.82.0.102's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at 98.82.0.102's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

a. mail confirmation required an email address, so I fail to see how providing an email address can be discouraged. b. my email address contains only one @. c. I prefer a username that conveys a degree of meaning, rather than apparent escapism. d. if you take a look in the help forum you will see that I am not the only person to have experienced this problem, it seems to be a recurring bug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian@perth (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I've been trying to figure this out, and I realize I'll be embarrassed when you tell me, but what is a PA? I've been trying to figure it out, and it just escapes me. 98.82.0.102 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PA means Personal Attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting talk-page threads

(As you were one of the first people to welcome me to wikipedia, I thought I would ask here. If this is inappropriate, I am certain you will tell me. Also, to be very clear, this is not about me, but to protect the innocent, no links will be provided) A silly question I suppose. Is there a policy on deleting threads on personal talk pages? I have seen a number of cases where editors have done this. In at least one case, the said editor was an admin. In one other, not an admin. There are other examples. My own opinion is that it should be discouraged. How are we to believe what is written on talk pages if editors remove threads at will? (I do accept that vandalism can and should be removed, but in the cases I am thinking about, I would not class the threads as vandalism. I could also show that the threads were not archived; just deleted) --Senra (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some thoughts - let me see if I can organize them a bit. (The short answers is yes, we have policies.)--SPhilbrickT 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This essay Wikipedia:User talk page notes:

Greater latitude is extended for removing content from user talk pages. Wikipedia policy does not prohibit users from removing content from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. Removing a warning is taken as evidence that it has been read by the user removing it (generally, the user associated with the talk page). Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

— multiple, Wikipedia:User talk page

Note it is an essay, so does not have the force of a guideline or a policy.

I recently ran across someone who "archived" their talk pages, simply by removing the threads, on the argument (implicitly or explicitly, I forget which) that page history could be used to find any old items. I thought that was odd, but it was a very established editor, sysop at least. I thought I might find it to illustrate, but it hasn't come back to me. While the argument has some validity, I thought it was odd.

The essay is not inconsistent with the relevant guideline WP:OWNTALK. The reference to warning removal is quoted extensively, although that may not be relevant to your question.

The extended latitude for removal does not mean anything goes. Refactoring which changes the meaning is disallowed. From your question, it doesn't appear that this is an issue, but see WP:REFACTOR isif you are interested (though note the prime target of that guide is article talk pages—because I don't think this is closely relevant to your question, I haven't examined it in detail).

I personally think it is poor practice to remove threads from user talk pages. I think regular archiving is quite appropriate, but not selection selective removal. While it is technically correct that one can reconstruct the history, if you are trying to understand some dispute, and looking tot he talk pages to see what is said, I suspect it is rare that one walks through the entire history to see if anything was deleted.

On a related note, I see some editors who declare that some other editor is no longer allowed to post at their talk page. I'd like to see that practice limited, and sometime may find the time to write a righteous rant, but it doesn't appear this issue is related to your question.--SPhilbrickT 17:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the above thoughtful and well referenced reply. This could be useful in future. In the meantime, I sincerely hope you are not trying to determine, / guess/ weasel out of me / or otherwise try to discover, who the innocent are in this context! Apart from anything else, I find it a good sport watching such editors talk pages. --Senra (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indital - Can we remove orphan tags this way?

Hi Shilbrick,

What are your thoughts on my below feedback? I would really like to remove the orphan tags. Thanks.

Thanks again for your awesome feedback. It's really helping me to understand how Wikipedia works. I would like to have the orphan tag removed since it makes it look like an incomplete article, but I'm having some issues trying to find appropriate Wiki pages that are appropriate to link to Indital. If I wrote a blurb on some Wikipedia pages that source the products they carry (Newels, Balusters, etc.) that said something to the effect of, "A person can find balusters at hardware stores and construction outlets. Many design companies also sell Balusters online. Indital (link to Wiki page) carries Balusters and other design items." - Would this take the orphan tag away? Jmlnarik01 (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meat to respond to you, but didn't, partly because I don't have a great answer. Adding such comments to other pages would be frowned upon—it would look like advertising. I added a link to Malo, Italy, and removed the orphan tag - but I don't know whether it will be enough.--SPhilbrickT 21:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Baldwin Letchworth

Thank you for your input. I will work first on the notability information. The other formatting and editing will come with some additional reading and examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherine United (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

User:VerballyInsane/TB VerballyInsane 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at TeleComNasSprVen's talk page. Message added 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Consider adminship

I think you'd have a good chance at a successful RfA. What do you think? Is this something you would be interested in? -- œ^™ 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly honored by your suggestion. It is something that's crossed my mind. There are two current impediments, both of which can be addressed soon. I'd like to either have a GA, or at least an honest attempt at a GA under my belt. I have two candidates in mind. The second is my day job—we've been working over two years on a software release due to come out in early September - work pressure will be extreme leading up to the release and (for a hopefully short time) after the release. I will definitely consider it then (end September or early October).--SPhilbrickT 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK :) Whenever you're ready. -- œ^™ 17:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment removal from CC PD talk

I removed a bit a comment of yours from this section as Carcharoth asked only for comments on their own, not replies to comments to each other. You're welcome, of course, to rephrase into your own words. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

NP, thanks for the notice; I don't envy you your tasks.--SPhilbrickT 18:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

—fetch·comms 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rhino Rack Page

Hi Sphilbrick,

I hope you have been doing well. I just created a new wikipedia page about Rhino Rack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Rack) and requested a move. Can you take a look and move into the main space?

Also,how would I include their logo on the page I created? I looked into Creative Commons, but I wasn't sure how to apply their logo. I do work for their company, but I don't have the license. How can I upload these kinds of logos?

Thanks! Jmlnarik01 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It is desirable to load images to Commons whenever possible, so that they can be used by all projects. However, the licensing requirements for Commons are quite strict, and almost certainly would not pertain to a company logo. (or to put it another way, the company s free to release a logo under a license that would allow it to be moved to commons, but it is highly unlikely that any company would release their logo in that way.) The alternative is to upload a low resolution version of the logo, and use it in an article with a FUR – Fair Use Rationale.

You are now auto-confirmed, so you can do this. While I have uploaded images, I've only done so with ones qualifying at Commons, so I'm not sufficiently up to spend on the exact issues (what resolution qualifies as low enough, how to write the Fair Use Rationale), so my suggestion is to post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. They are very helpful. Simply point out that you are relatively new, would like to upload a low resolution logo, and would appreciate step by step instructions on what resolution to use, and how to word the licensing for Fair Use. Make sure to indicate the article name. I think they will be helpful. I'm out of time for a couple days, and am checking in on a limited basis, but will monitor that forum and try to help out if you don't get a good clear answer.

You mentioned something about moving the article to main space- it is already there. I am concerned that it may be viewed as advertising, but I'll let someone else make that determination.

Check out Wikipedia:Uploading images before asking at Media copyright questions, it may answer all your questions, but don't hesitate to ask there if it does not.--SPhilbrickT 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for info, I'll let you know what I find out.Jmlnarik01 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom's PD

Hi Phil, I've begun working on my statement in response to ArbCom's proposed decision.[1] It's not done, but I would appreciate it if you took a look at it and offered your feedback. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First reactions - positive - sounds good. Some details to follow.--SPhilbrickT 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitionally, what is a sanction? Specifically, is an admonishment a sanction? I've read about this before, and honestly forgot the answer. Why does it matter? Because I think the Committee is concerned about appearances. Four editors were named, not three, with two on each side. To be sure, one is proposed for admonishment, which is either not a sanction, or a different level.

My concern is that some may read "three" remember there were four names, and get distracted arguing about whether the number if 3 or 4, and not concentrate on your substantive point. I suggest that you can largely eliminate this distraction by stating that only four participants were specifically named in the "Proposed remedies" section, despite the fact that other names were included in the evidence, with substantial evidence provided. It doesn't materially change the substance of your point (far more editors were specifically named in the gathering of evidence than were mentioned in the PD—is it really a correct inference that none of that evidence was persuasive?"--SPhilbrickT 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion should be directed here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That article on Roman office holding. May be useless, but here it is

Here's that article I was looking for: Cursus honorum -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My article got deleted :( Can you send it to me?

Hi Sphilbrick,

My article about Rhino Rack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Rack) was unfortunately was deleted :(

It was not meant to be advertising, I just wanted to explain who their company was and what they provided. Oh well, I'll start again and rewrite so it sounds nothing like advertising.

I've been trying to ask some of the admin's who userfy to send me the article back so I can use some of the info I had previously included, but have not heard back. Can you send me the article back, or direct me to someone who can?

Thanks Jmlnarik01 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't, because I'm not an admin, but I'll track down someone who can.--SPhilbrickT 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. It looks like it is here User:Jmlnarik01, which is not the right location. The move history says you did ituser:Fastily moved it.--SPhilbrickT 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rhino Article

Someone just emailed me the article. I made some changes, and moved into the main space. Thanks for checking!Jmlnarik01 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pierrot

I accidentally left my message for you on your main User page, I'm sorry to say. You'll find it at the bottom of the entries. I should have added that, if I sound totally off-base, I'd certainly want you to tell me that. I see that the editors I've mentioned have already started to make extensive changes to Pierrot, all of which look fine to me, incidentally. My only concerns are the ones I mention in my note to you: the "list" issue and the "justification" one. Thanks in advance for looking at the note. Beebuk 09:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On Pierrot (moved from user page)

I hesitate to impose on you in this way, but you have been so graciously helpful to me in the past that I risk the imposition. I am in a very distressing situation with one of the pages that I've been shepherding along, and I don't know what to do about it. In fact I've been so wrought up by the whole affair that I've walked out of the exchange that's grown up around it and vowed not to involve myself any further. But I can't get it out of my mind, I fear for the integrity of the page itself, and so I've decided to ask if you could offer me any advice.

It's the Pierrot page (if you know it, you have probably guessed), or at least two sections of the page, which two editors have attacked fiercely and I think rather irrationally. The sections are the modern ones: "The Early Twentieth Century" and "The Late Twentieth/Early Twenty-First Centuries." Those sections, unlike the rest of the article, are in list form, and neither of the editors--one more so than the other--is willing to accept the fact that lists have sometimes a legitimate place in Wikipedia. I myself would not have resorted to list form if I'd thought of a more successful way of organizing the material, but because of the enormous number of important artists and works involved, lists seemed to me the clearest and most concise way of doing it. (One of the editors claims, oddly, that the lists violate Wikipedia's goal of concision.) The editors are Ssilvers and Nandesuka. (Let's assume, arbitrarily, that they're both women.)

Nandesuka initiated their revisions by simply wiping out (without, incidentally, alerting anyone on the talk page) the whole second section, substituting a single sentence to the effect that Picasso and Godard produced Pierrot works in the late 20th century and that "there are books, songs, etc. by other artists" in the same vein as well. This, as well as some of her subsequent remarks, suggests that, if she doesn't simply consider the whole subject of Pierrot trivial and so undeserving of any extended treatment, she thinks that the pop-culture manifestations of the figure (which tend to dominate the late 20th/early 21st section) are beneath the consideration of serious readers. (Her last posting denies this--unconvincingly, after her slash-and-burn debut. I call it her last posting, though there may be others: I haven't had the stomach to look at Pierrot Talk after I saw their response to my last entry there.) Anyway, she now demands that all entries in those two sections be given a "reliable source." Which baffles me. The entries are not ideas or opinions: they're simply things in the world; what would "reliable sources" establish about them? Am I expected to give full publishing data for every book? or full museum data for every painting? or full production data for every play? Both editors want assurance that all the entries are "notable"--which may be what "reliable source" is really gesturing towards. But this seems to me a case of enforcing Wikipedia policy in a wholly crude, dogmatic, and irrational way.

First, many if not most of the artists--especially in the early 20th-century section--obviously need no justification (that a "reliable source" would provide) for being there: Picasso, William Faulkner, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali--literally, scores of these artists are universally accepted as artists of note. To demand a footnoted justification for their appearing in "Pierrot" seems an absurdity. Second, since Pierrot is a pop-culture phenomenon (Picasso wouldn't have chosen him as a subject if he hadn't been), the meaning of "notable" for his pop-culture manifestations becomes very ambiguous. Is Placebo a "notable" contemporary rock group? I've had enough readers make a (redundant) entry for the band (not knowing where they hail from, I suppose, and so not seeing the listing) that I've come to think they're "notable" for rock-band enthusiasts (although I had never heard of them before beginning work on the page). Is one Japanese comic book "notable" over another? They all look alike to me. And there's no "authority" that I can appeal to to settle the question. Manga readers seem like Madonna fans, for whom every song from the material girl is a masterpiece. It seems to me there should come a point where flexible policy should prevail over the dogmatic. And my choosing these entries constitutes just such a point.

Ssilvers goes farther. She not only wants "notability" established, but established in narrative form: I must provide--FOR EVERY ARTIST IN EACH SECTION--a justification for their worth in terms of scholarly comment and analysis. It's in vain that I point out that, even if I threw out everything in both sections except what had been created by major artists, the length of such a page would be novelistic. In fact, neither Ssilvers nor Nandesuka seems to pay any attention to what I say; they simply repeat their demands as if repetition is synonymous with reason. I wonder, in fact, if they've really read the sections they're attacking. Surely Ssilvers wouldn't be making the demands that she does if she were really aware of how many eminent artists she's expecting me to do a full treatment on.

I feel extremely frustrated and helpless--bullied, in fact. And powerless: it's two against one. Ssilvers regrets that I'm "walking away" from the page and admits that it will therefore suffer "deterioration." It already has: Nandesuka has thrown out all the Commercial Art links, claiming that they're tantamount to "advertisement." "Advertisement" for what? The Pierrot brand? Losing that link means losing for some readers the sight of charming antique postcards, of some rather beautiful art glass, and so on. But in the face of such ferocity I don't feel I can prevail.

I'd be happy to stay with the page and remove entries that are more questionable than others. I could part with Pierrot's ABC Garden, I suppose--if I could represent children's literature with the Hoban book. I can remove the Alcoholic Kidz (who seem to me terrible singers, anyway: but in the post-grunge age who am I to judge?). And so on. But I can't see any other way of organizing this material than in list form, and I think that all this "justification" business is misguided and insulting. I don't see any scholarly sources justifying the inclusion of all of his movies on the Jerry Lewis page (though some are pretty awful). I don't see any such sources justifying the inclusion of all the songs on the Madonna page (although she's always seemed to me simply a mediocrity). Why should the Pierrot material be subjected to these much harsher standards?

Well, I'll stop. Is it possible that you could look at the exchange on Pierrot Talk when you have a few spare moments, and give me some advice? I'm at the end of my rope, and don't know who else to turn to. I hope this is not too much of a terrible bore.

P.S. I wanted to thank you again for your help with Charles Deburau. It got selected for a DYK and got almost 2000 hits. I was disappointed to see it was ranked as only a C. As "Pierrot" unfortunately has been. Beebuk 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Pierrot

Many many thanks for your giving your attention to this matter. First, I apologize for the procedural glitches; as a newcomer to this whole enterprise, I find myself often tripping over my feet (leaving messages on User pages and forgetting to leave edit summaries, for instance). Second, I don't think of the Pierrot page (or any other I've hatched or reworked) in proprietary terms. The recently posted request for a better intro to "Pierrot" seems entirely reasonable to me. (And my wife has even half-convinced me that the dumping of the "Commercial Art" links is, alas, entirely defensible, as well.) And, no, I'm not asking that the page be returned to its pre-intervention state. I'm more than willing to do what these new editors call some serious "pruning": what I'm arguing is that, even after such an operation, there will be far more "must-include" material than they seem to realize and that turning it all into narrative will immerse that material unnecessarily into verbal murk. I'm also arguing that their criteria for "justification" of an entry's inclusion are unreasonable. Since, according to policy, no person or work may be the subject of a Wikipedia article unless that person or work is "notable," it seems to me to follow that, at the very least, blue-linked persons and works (etc.) are by definition notable. (And if I retained only such blue-linked entries, both sections would still be substantial--as lists, not to mention narratives.)

Well, I don't want to take up your time unnecessarily. There is of course no urgency about any of this (as you point out), so please don't make any special detours from your work-at-hand. I'm more than grateful that you've done as much as you have so far. Beebuk 09:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready to move it?

Tony suggests that discussion should move to the GS/CC/RE talk. I think maybe it's ready to actually be proposed. What do you think? Maybe reply on my page where we are already talking? ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ready—will come to your talk page.--SPhilbrickT 11:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

UConn player

I know you focus on the UConn women's program, but I just wanted to alert you to a Huskie of Honor article that I created about a week ago for the men's program. It's Art Quimby, and I couldn't find anything detailing his date or birth or, if applicable, date of death. I don't know what your resources are, but if you could help me out I'd greatly appreciate. Thanks for your hard work on Wikipedia, I know lots of us appreciate it. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question at a discussion board, if that doesn't turn up anything, I can email a couple people who might know, if that fails, I have a decent relationship with the information director, and will try there. Things are fairly hectic at the moment (ArbCom on Climate Change), so promise you'll poke me if I don't follow up. (Your kinds words are very appreciated.)--SPhilbrickT 02:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Sphilbrick. Any word on Quimby's DOB/DOD? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say, no. 557 people read it, but no responses. My next step was to email some people, but the ones coming to mind are regular readers of the discussion board, so I'll go to plan C and email the UConn information director.--SPhilbrickT 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The SID I knew isn't listed at the staff directory, so I am trying someone else.--SPhilbrickT 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok thanks for the effort. Keep me posted! Jrcla2 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try, I don't expect anything until Tuesday at the earliest - due to the holiday.--SPhilbrickT 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checked today (15 September) and no response. --SPhilbrickT 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit war at Climate change alarmism

Hi Phil, I see that you're an editor on our Climate change alarmism article.[2] I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the recent edit war on that article. Do you think that the disputed source[3] is about or relevant to this article's topic? Also, I've created a time line of the incident on my talk page.[4] I guess I should have thought about it before I started creating it, but I wonder if it would be helpful to create a table like we did before. As always, your thoughts are appreciated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In short, yes it is relevant. Although the point of that article was to emphasize that it is a myth that the scientists were in consensus that the world was headed to an ice age, the article doesn't challenge the notion that some of the media over-hyped the issue, and claimed scientific support that wasn't there. In fact, that's part of the point—the media was irresponsibly claiming a scientific consensus that didn't really exist.

As I understand the sequence of events, GregJackP is making the point that there was a bit of alarmism going on, but I don't believe he is claiming it was supported by the scientists, just that it was reported by the media. That makes this a very relevant source for support of that claim.

Greg's contention is that the media claimed there was a scientific consensus for a global cooling. WMC's article demonstrates that there was not a consensus, but it doesn't deny that there was a claim. Alarmism is about making claims. Proving the claim is false doesn't disprove that the claim existed. In fact, widely reported false claims are arguably a better example of alarmism that claims that turn out to be solid, so the paper's proof of the lack of consensus is further support for alarmism, rather than a weakening of the claim.

However, work pressures have prevented me from reading the entire exchange, so I haven't weighed in, other than at the margins. I will look at your timeline, and I should be able to make a table. I am planning to go to the USA National Basketball game versus Australia tonight, so if I can't find some time this afternoon, it will have to wait until morning.--SPhilbrickT 15:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read through WMC's paper twice and I've identified 11 passages that appear to be about climate change alarmism and are suitable for the article. However, it appears that Jehochman and GregJackP have worked out a compromise that seems agreeable to both of them.[5] Given that, I say let's hold off on this and wait and see how that shakes out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I don't really have the time and I'm so incensed about some of what's happening, I'm liable to say something I'll regret. I can't believe there is actually a serious discussion of sanctioning an editor for using the word "some".--SPhilbrickT 17:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Autumn 2010 Photo Contest

As a member of WikiProject Connecticut, you are invited to participate in the WikiProject Connecticut AUTUMN 2010 Photo Contest! Rules: You must take the picture yourself; adding public domain pictures (i.e. postcards from pre-1923 that are on a website) will NOT count. The picture cannot already exist on Wikipedia, in Commons, etc. The picture must be of something notable for a CT rated article and be of decent quality. You may not add more than 5 pictures to any one article during the contest. All photos must be uploaded and added to their articles. If it wasn't added to the article and titled, it doesn't count. All submissions must be made after 12:00 UTC (8:00 AM EST) on September 15th, 2010 and no later than 23:59 UTC (7:59 PM EST) on October 31st, 2010. Everyone who adds 15 pictures will earn a barnstar, and the editor who adds the most pictures will earn a special unique barnstar! To enter the contest, click here. Thanks for your attention and good luck! –Grondemar 04:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo contest

Thanks for entering the photo contest. I noticed you posted you uploaded three photos on two pages; excellent job getting on the board first! Could you also indicate which articles you added photos to? (See this diff for how we listed them last time.) This makes it such easier to audit things at the end of the contest, as well as allowing fellow participants to see where you added photos so we don't duplicate effort. Thanks in advance! –Grondemar 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I assumed you needed a list, but I thought perhaps it might go elsewhere. I've updated - I'm new to this contest, so don't hesitate to point out if I'm doing something wrong.--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Feed

Nice to see you back on FEED. It's been crazy. Since we improved the system, we're now getting some 10-20 requests per day, and consequently it's been massively backlogged. I've personally cleared down >100 several times, but it just comes back.

Same problems with WP:AFC too.

Victim of our own success, I suppose.

Do call in on IRC again, some time / any time. Nice to see you around.  Chzz  ►  21:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

tb

Sir, talk back. :) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your input - good ideas, please keep checking back and offer more advice if you can Lori Costello (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)