User talk:Phil Sandifer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello.

Contents

[edit] I'm a newbie...

and i am curious to know as of how things work here i would aprreciate it if you showed how things worked here?

Shor7es7 s7raw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shor7es7 S7raw (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit of a broad question - our policies are at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Are there specific things you're wondering about? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging

Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/Anarky

Phil, User:Cast has put a lot of work into this and I think it should be nominated for featured but he wants to run it through peer review first. Can you have a look at it and offer some comments please? Thanks, Hiding T 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merciless review wanted

Hey, since you’ve done so much on List of Halo characters (or, the list once known as Characters in the Halo series, List of Characters in the Halo series, and List of Characters in Halo…) I was wondering if you could pop by and tell us how it’s coming along. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the drop-in, we'll keep truckin'! David Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] You’re right

True, sorry. --Van helsing (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking RFAR threads

Do not do that as an involved participant. Doing it again would be seen as blanking vandalism. Lawrence Cohen 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, would you change your removals to strikethroughs, please? DurovaCharge! 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even touching that one again at this point. Do what you want with it. I'm disgusted at the insistence of people on maintaining a thread that it is clear everybody has thought better of. No wonder there's such a poisonous atmosphere surrounding this case. Everybody is far more interested in humiliating the perceived opposition than in actual progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's full protected now. I agree we should be doing more to mend fences and build bridges. I wonder if there's something that could be done to improve this situation along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which grew out of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Watchlist-notice

Hi, is there a guideline for inclusion of a notice on watchlist? That RFC message is perfectly fine, don't you think the community should be notified of an important event that may have significant impact afterwards? Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We could discuss on Template talk:Watchlist-notice, if you are interested. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod notice

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Sandman Companion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Sandman Companion. 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that the template above requests that you comment on the article's talk page why you removed, and that to date you have not done so. However, in your edit summary, you note that this is from the "same publisher as the comics." Unless you're proposing that the Wikipedia:Notability (books) be changed in a fairly drastic manner that would allow everything by a particular publishing house to become notable automatically, you've not satisfied the concern raised in the now-removed prod statement.
If this is a work in progress, why not consider creating it in user-space instead of leaving it half-done in mainspace?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are sincerely suggesting that consensus does not exist to keep books from major publishers, feel free to AfD the article and see if it gathers consensus there. I can't imagine that it will, however. The article is a stub - I was filling in requested articles with stubs I could do more or less from the top of my head, because that's a productive thing to do. I left it in its current state because somebody can expand it, but the basic information is there. But it is not "half-finished" in any meaningful sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly not even half finished: It doesn't tell us why it's improtant, or why anyone should care. And the current accepted at practice Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't match what you're describing. It's a shame if you're suggesting I use AfD as {{cleanup}} because you aren't willing to make the effort to create an article with enough information to justify its own existance. I note that a stub is "a few sentences of text." This article is two.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The article describes the book and gives pertinent information about it. There is certainly lots to be added to the article, but the article clearly flags the book's importance. I've added another sentence in case this is unclear to somebody unfamiliar with the comic, but I am hard pressed to believe that the article requires anything more to function as a preliminary stub, or that anybody looking at the article could have serious doubts about the appropriateness of its subject matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Fair Use Rationale

Phil - I've been notified that an album art image I uploaded some time ago has insufficient fair use rationale. At the time I uploaded it, I used the standard fair use boilerplate template, {{Non-free album cover}}. I am now told that I must supplement this with {{Non-free use rationale}}. Besides a note of the specific article the image was intended for, and an affirmation that it is a low resolution, complete copy of a piece of album art, I'm not sure what else to state, or how strong a case I need to make. Can you advise?

Also, when and for what reason was this new policy settled on? It seems prohibitively difficult and inherently non-inclusionist. Thanks, --Peter Farago (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of {{prod}}

You have suggested several templates on Templates for Deletion should be "Prodded", i.e. go through the WP:Proposed deletion process. {{prod}} can only be used for Articles, User pages, and User talk pages, per the first paragraph of WP:PROD. Also, once an article has been nominated for deletion through WP:AFD (for Articles) or Miscellany for Deletion (for User pages and User talk pages), or if an article has previously been "Prodded", it is forever ineligible for {{prod}} per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#How_it_works. Articles can be taken to the appropriate Deletion Discussion after an unsuccessful prod, but they may never go the other way. I think what you mean to suggest is that it should be Speedy Deleted, in which case you should name the appropriate criteria. There are general criteria as well as namespace specific criteria (such as WP:CSD#T3 for templates). If a speedy deletion criterion applies, an admin may decide that the discussion should be closed early and the page deleted (on the other hand, an admin may decide to just let the period run).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SupermanBatman8.jpg

Kara Zor-El appears on the cover. This is the first image of the modern version of Kara Zor-El as she appears in Superman/Batman #8. The cover is notable as the characters modern debut.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see a reason to remove it. Shrouded or not, it does illustrate Kara Zor-El and its the same illustration used for the interior of the comic book. perhaps a better caption would be more appropriate- "Kara Zor-El's modern age debut as she appears on the cover of Superman/Batman 8" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

I saw that you removed the section I added to IAR. I don't know what you mean about "misuse" in your edit summary - IAR is not a rule, and can't be misued. IAR is the principle that you in general one should ignore the written rules and go about one's business. As I interact with other people, I'm becoming more convinced of the need for some explanation on the policy page. The point of policy documents is to document the way we do things - except the IAR page, which is cryptic to the point where, apparently, it is being misunderstood. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Beautiful Sunset

I see you've deleted the article for the Buffy comic "A Beautiful Sunset" yet again. I can't say I find your rational for this action particularly convincing. There was no "crystal balling" in the article; all information was referenced. You also mention about not having articles for individual issues of comics. Yet there are other individual Buffy comics have articles concerning them. The original deletion vote was taken several months ago; part of the reasoning behind the deletion being that the comic's release was far off. Since it is being released within the next four days that line of reasoning is hardly valid anymore. --Cyclonius (talk) 22:38, 03 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediawiki security

Hi Phil. I noticed this post. It got me thinking. I think an earlier post by you pointed out that this incident shows one very damaging thing admins can do with their tools. I've heard various dark mutterings about very bad things rogue admins could do. Is that one of them, or is the Mediawiki stuff more concerning? Someone also mentioned sitewide css. But I'm guessing most of the actions to the latter two are easily reversible. It is the disentangling of histories that seems the really difficult thing to undo (though it should be spotted quickly and desysopping would follow). More generally though, as the project lasts longer and gets bigger, these loopholes will get discovered, and, worse, someone with real knowledge of the system (ie. Mediawiki) will become so disgruntled that they will do some damage. I don't know what can be done about that, but just wanted to mention it to someone. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Double post. This one and the one above...

The other thing is about fiction and notability, or rather just notability in general. I read the thread you started on that (about WP:N rising to the level of WP:V), and I remembered a thought I've had several times. Possibly too paranoid, but I've sometimes thought that it is possible that certain groups, annoyed that their "non-notable" articles got deleted, have decided that if theirs were deleted, then others will go with it, and are engaged in a massive gaming of the system by relentlessly pushing the notability bar higher and higher and then aiming at various areas of surviving "fancruft". Am I being too paranoid or is that a possibility? I think Wikipedia is susceptible to meta-gaming in this way - and it is something that needs to be guarded against. Somehow. Anyway, as above, just throwing the thought out there. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice analysis at the WikiProject Comics talk page. Doczilla (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I have certainly not always agreed with you, and I know I opposed your ArbCom candidacy. But when I said you were "sometimes brilliant", it is that kind of contribution I was referring to. A wise, and well-thought through challenge to a "truth" which can be in need of some shaking-up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groupthink

Using another login to get around 3RR might be a very bad idea Phil. --Basique (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Especially with this still out there Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phil Sandifer. --Basique (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It was just an observation, with no opinion whatsoever. I expressed no opinion. I had no opinion. You're a great editor and I would hate to discover something like that to be true. In fact, had you not been such a strong editor whose work I've thought so well of (see my remark higher on this page from less than two weeks ago regarding a great analysis you'd made), I probably wouldn't even have taken an interest. Honestly, I made the observation only to see if Basique wanted to discuss it more, but then a very long time passed before Basique replied. I didn't want to put it in the form of a question because a question calls for discussion that might not need to occur. I wanted to leave Basique room to let it go if Basique so chose or to discuss it more if that was where Basique would like to head with it anyway. So I made the one matter of fact observation that remains an observation regardless of whether it means puppetry or not. That was some time ago but nobody responded back then.
There is one other reason for putting it in the form of an observation rather than a question, but that has to do with something that is not directly about you. I'd gladly tell you by email but not in public forum. Doczilla (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And now I've rambled too much. Doczilla (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, though, RfA aside, I would love to discuss this with you non-publicly. Heck, I'd be glad to give you a phone call. (If you do email me, let me know on my talk page because I don't normally check that email unless I know I need to.) Doczilla (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I just now noticed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phil Sandifer. (Yes, it's right above my remarks, but I didn't notice it earlier (I mean notice it today, not about noticing it over a month ago). I was focused on relations with you, not B.) So I certainly understand why this whole issue is suddenly such a serious concern to you.
My wife just asked why I looked amused. It was because the two remaining oppose votes made me think, "Well, now I don't have to worry about whether or not my upcoming answer to a question is going to make someone cast the first oppose vote and spoil my 100% support rate." As weird as that sounds, the thought obviously amused me enough to show on my face from across the room. Doczilla (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Very seriously, though, there is one reason I would really like to tell you via email if possible. Doczilla (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Real life beckoned, but now I'm back at the computer. Before or while reading my message when you get it, you might want to compare these[1][2] to [[3]] for reference. Doczilla (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Email this user didn't work. Maybe you couldn't keep waiting. I understand if that's the case, but my wife really needed me off the computer. Oh, I really hope I get to explain to you how ironic this is. Take care, Doczilla (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I'm about to finish a different post, and then I'll go compose the email. Doczilla (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. And I especially mean the part about the Stock Exchange. Doczilla (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations

Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations

The poject was a great idea, but as noone showing interst in the project, even you, the creator of the project have not edited the project page for a long time. So I am nominating it for deletion because it unnecessarily taking space in wikipedia. However I will like to see the project restarted, so you can restart the project, that will be very good. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics & Notability

Hi Phil - following your invitation on the Comix Scholars Mailinglist, I'd like to ask you to explain me something about Wikipedia: I'm working on notability guidelines for articles on comics in the German WP, and I noticed that the English guidelines for comics (I guess that would be WP:Notability (fiction)) are very vague. So how exactly do they work? Are there more (formal or informal) notability guidelines for comics somewhere that are more detailed? E.g. is there a sales figure threshold? What are the main arguments about the notability of comics? I know that the English WP is not as strict about notability as the German, but I guess there must be some sort of restriction. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injunction

Would you please reconsider the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair? The way we have been handling these is to add Template:FICTWARN to the discussion page and relist the discussion whenever the 5 days expire. There is a tracking category for these discussions, so any decided action by ARBCOM can be manageably acomplished, or the template can be changed to describe the outcome of the injunction. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations

The project is a great idea. Can you restart the project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restarted the project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Happy thoughts

I have nominated Happy thoughts, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy thoughts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wold Newton character lists in three places

Phil Sandifer...I was doing a bit of clean-up of my subpages, and after doing a search I found two others had a subpage for Wold Newton characters. Why don't we just merge them into one to keep this from fragmenting? You can use my space if you wish, since it looks like yours has gotten some criticism. It would take a while to make sure that there aren't any duplicates, but it can be done. Just let me know on this talk page what you want to do. The list of the three Wold Newton character lists are below. - LA @ 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are hereby invited to www.wold.wikidot.com -- password is "Doc is John C.'s cousin" -- --24.176.10.125 (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (NOT a random post...)

[edit] Fashionable Nonsense

I've undone your reversion of my {citequote} additions to Fashionable Nonsense. Yes, the quotes are from the book, but they need page number citations, IMO, since they are almost all somewhat controversial statements that really should be cited in order to facilitate verification by anyone interested to do so. I plan to cite them myself when I get the chance, assuming someone else doesn't do it first. - dcljr (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. My copy of the book got recalled at the library, so I don't currently have one handy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust. Sancho 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Feet Under

What to put at Six Feet Under was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redirect question. Around 500 links were changed [4] from Six Feet Under to Six Feet Under (TV series) to prepare a disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about a subpage

Is this page deleteable per this MfD or is it one of the pages kept "for historical value"? Though it doesn't contain any vandalism, on the surface it seems to pose a problem vis-a-vis WP:NOT#FORUM. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello? :) Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Feet Under Question

This is just a question: Why do you use Six Feet Under page as a disambiguation page? Schould not a disambiguation page have "...(disambiguation)" in it's name? Lykantrop (Talk) 13:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The page history of Six feet under shows that I linked to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions when I moved it [5] from Six Feet Under (disambiguation) to Six Feet Under. Phil Sandifer later moved it to Six feet under. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That is what I wanted to learn...--Lykantrop (Talk) 06:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PVP

I'm curious - would you please explain your reasoning for re-rating PVP from TOP to High? There should be at least one Webcomic of top importance in the Comics list, and by any stretch of the imagination, PVP Online is that comic. Please see my reasoning in the discussion Talk:PVP Top Importance? on the talk page; I feel your edit is misplaced, and you may only be considering "print" comics in your judgement, wheras webcomics are considered a significant part of the comics industry in this day and age. I look forward to hearing your input on this issue, either here, my talk page, or in the article discussion section. I am dissapointed though that you did not discuss your change first when there is an already existing discussion on the issue. Timmccloud (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twit comment on me at MFD

Is a direct personal attack. Continuing personal attacks could lead to your being blocked. Please stop. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are being a disruptive twit. Please stop or accept our 24 hour all expenses paid vacation to somewhere other than Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" is a disruptive comment, especially when directed at a fellow administrator editor in good standing in a heated discussion. I suggest you refrain from such remarks, if at all possible... you may well find the shoe on the other foot after a discussion at AN/I if you repeatedly use this sort of approach. Better yet, strike the comment in the original discussion to show good faith. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
(I'm not an admin). Lawrence § t/e 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Struck. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Phil.

Thanks Phil. If you check out the archived discussion on the page, Hari e-mailed wikipedia (on my advice) to say it was a public domain image and anyone can use it. It's used by the BBC and Channel Four and all sorts without a copyright tag because it's public domain.

I just e-mailed Johann to suggest he sends permission again to wiki[edia to the permissions e-mail to clear this up! David r from meth productions (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] accidentally marked vandalism

I marked your edit as vandalism by accident, but there is no reason why I wouldn't use twinkle and I still would have reverted it, it was only the vandalism mark that was accidental. It's a properly sourced piece of info. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • replied here. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed the wording making it considerably more neutral. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Made it even more neutral, put the Jesus thing as just a sentence in the Controversies section instead of it's own subheading, and the kicked out of Catholic school thing was already mentioned and referenced. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Awesome. :) -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One of the Foundation issues

Hi Phil:

This question arises out of the discussion in BLP Talk, but I thought I would ask you here as it's a bit of a sideline.

One of the Foundation principles is "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering".

Why does the Foundation have this principle? Is it because

a) having to register is regarded as a significant hurdle which stands in people's way?

b) requiring people to register does not provide any benefit to Wikipedia?

c) other?

Maybe there's somewhere you can refer me to where this is discussed.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll seek an answer elsewhere. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you're interested, the Reference Desk told me about a concise answer to my question.
"One summary is expressed at Village Pump/Perennial Proposals." Wanderer57 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An example for No Original Research discussion

I wonder if the discussion on what the No Original Research dictum means or should mean could be clarified by considering a specific example that i am familiar with, namely the summarizing of information in lists of U.S. National Historic Landmarks. I have felt that I have been doing original research in that no one has ever categorized, tallied, and summarized as I am doing, in passages such as in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York#Overview. There are 256 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in New York which I and others have written up, based on sources specific to each of the 256 places, but without any general overviews of the set as a whole being available. Describing the list of them as a group, as in the intro and overview section of the list-article requires synthesis that is creative and original, I believe. For example, I state that "Notable architects whose work is represented in the NHLs of the state include: Alexander Jackson Davis (7 sites),[40] Andrew Jackson Downing (2),[41] William West Durant (2),[42] Leopold Eidlitz (2),[43] Cass Gilbert (2),[44] Henry J. Hardenbergh (2),[45] Raymond Hood (3),[46] Philip Hooker (2),[47] Minard Lafever (6),[48] John McComb Jr. (3),[49] Frederick Law Olmsted (3),[50] Isaac G. Perry (2),[51] George B. Post (3),[52] James Renwick, Jr. (4),[53] Henry Hobson Richardson (2),[54] Louis Sullivan (2),[55] Richard Upjohn (6),[56] Calvert Vaux (6),[57] and Frederick Clarke Withers (2).[58]" (where [40]-[58] indicate footnotes that enumerate the sites.

I would put it forward in the Talk page, but I am not sure it is a proper illustration or not. I have thought that I was performing original research that is forbidden by the explicit policy, but that I feel is okay to do in practice (because I go to great lengths to make the accuracy of the summaries obvious). This could serve as an example in the current discussion, if it is evident enough that the summarizing is counter to explicit policy. It seems to me that it is counter to the nutshell statement "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", because there is no source anywhere that makes summaries like these I am making. While staying entirely factual, I may get around to making more potentially politically charged summaries too, like "there are __ Presbyterian churches, __ Episcopal churches, and ___ synagogues, but no Islamic mosques that are NHLs in the U.S." However, I am not sure this is a good example, as perhaps people will not agree that this violates the letter of the current NOR policy.

Do you think this example is something that would be prohibited by the current policy but allowed by your amendments? Let me know what you think. doncram (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brainstorming

You've got me thinking with your last reply at WT:NOR. Perhaps the problem is that the wiki has grown large enough that there really is no longer a one-size fits all approach that works correctly across all subjects. This situation may also be a consequence of the rules becoming so "wordified". Rough solutions ideas: Pare down the rules so they are general enough, while retaining the essential impact of the principle they are about, that they can (once again) apply across all domains. If that fails to work entirely, or problems arise, create a limited set of short general subject guidelines. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Content policy in a nutshell. Please let me know what you think. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. If it isn't clear from reading a rule why we have such a rule, it's a bad rule. All of our rules should on expressing the underlying principle -- the reason for having it, the idea behind it -- with only a modicum of specifics. Maybe we could even formally segregate policies from guidelines along those lines.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You both may be interested in User:Vassyana/insanity. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree with you

I think you are wrong about many of the assertions you've made in policy discussions. As far as I can tell, you either don't understand our core policies, or you simply don't agree with them. In general, I do agree with them. Therefore I disagree with you. The fact that I disagree with you is not the same as "ignoring you". I've read your comments and I've responded as I felt appropriate. I feel no obligation to respond to every post you make - it's ok with me if you get in the last word in a particular thread. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is, in fact, as far as you can tell, then you cannot tell very far at all. You have, in fact, not responded to most of my arguments. Truth be told, you've spent more time braying about how I talk too much or how I don't post things to your preferred page than you have actually looking at what I've said and responding to it. In that regard, it's clear that you feel no obligation to respond to every post I make - you've barely responded to a single thing I've said. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch

Wow, I never realize that. Fix coming pronto. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't figure out where to put it. Help? 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TT

Thanks for the heads-up. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOR discussion

I would like to invite you and CBM to discuss the matter from WT:NOR further at User talk:Vassyana#NOR discussion. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, how would you improve Wikipedia:These are not original research? Feel free to improve away if you feel the urge. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 presidential election

There is some new activity at [6] if you are still interested in this subject. Bonewah (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hasty

I presume the assertion that he and his mother were alienated was what prompted this excision of yours? I think you were overly hasty to excise the information about his parents identity. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you analyzed WP:DEL ?

I have noted you seem to be very good at sifting through discussions and edit histories to find origins of changes. Have you by chance done that yet for WP:DEL to find the origin of the inclusion of WP:N into that policy? Was it there when WP:DEL was elevated to policy and if so did it generate any conflict from the start? Also, what was the wording on WP:N at the time it was referenced into WP:DEL? -- Low Sea (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That is some amazing history. Minor inadvertent change resulting in enormous consequence, kind of remind me of the infamous "corporations are persons" error. I am going to put the strategic part of my mind to work to see if I can find a succinct argument for changing WP:DEL back to its original intentions on the grounds it never was supposed to be that way (hmmm... do I smell the repeatedly bruised flesh of a deceased equine ?). If needed do I have your OK to reference the analysis you did or perhaps even include it (with attribution of course) as a big part of a larger WP essay for general discussion ? This may be a while, as IRL I have a lot of stuff heading my way right now. -- Low Sea (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts on Ayers are always welcome

no worries It is me i think (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Unsourced_or_poorly_sourced.22 are also welcome.Bdell555 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Care to look at another one ?

Thank you again for your analysis of the WP:DEL history. I know I am walking dangerously close to abusing our barely existant wiki-friendship but you are so good at analyzing policy histories I am going to ask anyways... I am interested in the origin of speedy deletion and more importantly the rapid expansion of WP:CSD. I think there may be a very strong argument for drastically reducing what criteria are appropriate for speedy deletion and thus helping fledgling articles stand a better chance growing to maturity. If you feel this is an effort you could support I would certainly appreciate the help. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS question at Frieda Harris article

Hi Phil, I gather that you are an OTRS volunteer... so I hope you can assist me. My attention was drawn to the above article, and I am not sure how to deal with the situation... the article is all but a direct cut and paste job from this website. On the talk page, someone posted an email from the website's owner, granting permission to copy the material... dated Sept. 4, 2005. Unfortunately it does not look as if there is an OTRS ticket number for it (apparently the rules were different back when the permission was granted, and numbers were not needed... or something to that effect... see: WT:Verifiability#Frieda Harris for more background on that).

I have several questions... first, is there any record of this permission at OTRS? If there is a record, what does that mean as far as how much cutting and pasting from the source webpage is appropriate? If there isn't a record, are we dealing with a deletion situation? Should we flag it for copyvio? etc. I want to assume good faith... and accept that permission was granted... but I am unhappy with the idea of Wikipedia simply copying some other website's material... especially when I am not even sure if the source webpage is a reliable source by wikipeida's standards.

Some guidance would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackhawk66 (copied from userpage)

Just saw your comment on my talk page about removing my material from the Batplane and Batmobile pages. I was indeed the author of the material that I added, as I am the owner of the website from which it was taken. Sorry I didn't know how to identify it as such. I think Wikipedia is the worse off for it having been removed (especially the Batplane page which is just pitiful now) but the information is still available on my site so I guess I won't worry about it. I only occasionally visit Wikipedia so I didn't see your comments on my talk page until well after the changes had been made (right now, as a matter of fact). Obviously, I'm not a suitable editor for Wikipedia since I don't monitor my edits regularly. Oh, I also resent your immediate assumption of dishonesty on my part. That was not justified. Attitudes like yours, and all the annoying bots, have made my participation in Wikipedia an annoyance I can do without.Blackhawk66 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

[edit] LA's message above, please respond

My message is up a bit. - LA @ 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edson Elcock

Hi, I saw you deleted Edson Elcock a while ago. He's now played at a fully professional level and is therefore notable under WP:BIO guidelines. Could you restore the article? --Balerion (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you start it yourself? Much better a new article than a restored one given his notability is so recent. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TUATW comment

Hi; the comment you re-added wasn't the one which was mentioned in the thread on my talkpage, so perhaps you made a mistake: in fact, it was unequivicoally a FORUM violation (it complained that the episode confirmed to be comedic was not funny - this is personal opinion on the article's subject and could not lead to an improvement in the article) unlike the one I had a complaint about which was borderline, I'll admit. I've therefore undone your edit. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you might have done the wrong ones. This wasn't geared at improving the article, and could never lead to it, it's just a Wikipedia Review-type complaint about policy. This isn't helpful as it's simply his/her personal opinion that City of Death was humourous (I thought it wasn't, myself), and couldn't lead to the article being improved. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Outis does indeed explain the City of Death comment persuasively, but irrationally. The article did not say it was the first comic episode of "Who"; it said that it was the first intentionally comically scripted episode. Thus individual people finding other episodes funny (I find "World War Three" funny) bears no relation to it. Good-faith I grant you, but still a direct violation of the text of WP:FORUM. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Jane

Hi; per WP:BLP such information must be sourced clearly. I have actually looked for reliable sources and have found none linking them to that episode - there is one for Sarah being in the series, but other than that, nowt. —TreasuryTag—t | c 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The source you listed did not mention the episode you placed it in, so it's not enough. I did mention this above - and did put in some work rather than just blind reverting. The source must mention EPISODE 13 if that's what you want to add to the article. Sorry. —TreasuryTag—t | c 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have posted further input on the article's talkpage - also note that you nearly went over the 3RR, it's much better to discuss these things first. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] train our mobs

You said: "The problem should be understood as a problem of social engineering - how do we train our mobs to behave usefully? Policy should be understood as the increasingly failed attempt to train our mobs via rigid control and stark delineation of what they can and can't do. It hasn't worked."

I agree. I was thinking that our "forever september" problem might best be dealt with by a Foundation sponsored "Our Values" training course with a graduation leveling up experience as carrot. Those who don't care to level up generally already share our core values. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] consensus?

? So there's no need any longer to demonstrate any notability? And bad things that spread around are suddenly consensus instead of idiocy? dorftrottel (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzo's Oil

I'm really just confused about the whole thing, so if you want to make those changes, feel free to do so. The way it was before appeared to be even more confusing since people were leaving talk messages on the wrong pages. But if that's the convention, I'm fine with that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly you are not a newbie. :)

But if you notice at the top of each page, there are a series of tabs. The left tab is typically marked "article" (or similar depending on the page being viewed - here it is "user page"). To the right of that tab is typically "discussion". The discussion section at EverQuest contains a good bit of information. You may find it useful. I know I would find it useful if you would join.

Your comment about the origin of the idea for EQ is not germane to the discussion of which company was responsible for EverQuest, nor who oversaw the design and development.

While neither the EQ page nor your talk page are really the right place to discuss the difference between "The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost." and "From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest." SMED's concept was for a Sony MMORPG. Brad McQuaid was the primary creative force behind the game/world that became "EverQuest". The difference between an artist/designer and someone who oversees a development corporation/division/department/etc. may not be immediately apparent, but is very important.

I will duplicate the EQ portion of this onto the discussion section. Please join in. We really can pingpong all day. I don't mind.

Sinneed (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

You'll see that we made an option 8, as you'd specified, Phil, on the (Obama bio Talk page; and you're invited to help specify what degree of "inclusivity" with regard to Dr. Ayers' former "career" you'd believe most appropriate in it. — Justmeherenow (   ) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options where I comment on your proposal. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Noroton (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your opinion

Hi, please !vote on the language in my article Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
  • You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)