User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Your hidden quote idea

Hi I came across one of your ideas about using a "hidden quote" as a way to solve both worlds -- preventing semantic drift, avoiding copyright issues, and letting future editors see the original source in case content becomes hidden behind a paywall. What I'm wondering is: how would this work in practice? would it be using the "  " parameters within the quote space of a citation? Or after or before the citation within the text (but unseen in read mode, and seen in edit mode). The whole quoting issue is one that I contend with a lot -- I like using a quote to establish verifiability but at the same time not doing it too extensively so that it risks copyvio issues, and I am thinking of using your hidden quote system from now on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair question - I hadn't fully thought it through. I just tried an example in User:Sphilbrick/Sandbox for Reelin testing. I added the quote parameter to the first footnote (Note I am using LDR, so you will have to scroll down to the ref section). Adding "|quote=" followed by the hidden comment lets the editor know it is a quote, but the parsing treats the parameter as blank, so it doesn't show up in the footnote, as desired.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool! So it works within the quote parameter to hide the quote. So it straddles both worlds. Hey, excellent idea!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to thank-you for the extensive comments you've made to the discussion. I'm not quite sure where it is headed yet, but there's been some interesting discussions.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope I didn't blab on a bit much; I think I learned more from the discussion than I contributed (even though I tend to write on and on and on :) ), and I probably will use your hidden quote idea from now on. I encourage you to add the hidden quote idea to the discussion -- I think it's a good one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing we might consider, if you add this idea to the discussion, is that there might be a note within the hidden quote telling future editors not to delete the hidden quote? It might be something as simple as  -- something like that. Just an idea.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to give RAN a chance to respond, but I see RAN is editing, and hasn't felt inclined to respond, so I will write something up.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant thinking

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For brainstorming the hidden quote solution to permit verification while protecting copyrights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Note -- the Sphilbrick idea is to use the "quote parameter" within a citation, by using |quote= within the citation template, BUT disabling the code using  . Thus, fact-checkers can find the actual quote within the reference IF they are working in edit mode, but the quote is hidden for all other purposes, thus protecting the copyright privileges of the material quoted. Fine job, Sphilbrick! You are one of the amazing people I bump into at Wikipedia on occasion, and I commend your intelligence and creativity!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) The jury is till way out on whether others will accept it, but we'll see.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 09:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring

(copy from my talk page)

Please stop the edit warring. I've listed every edit on the talk page. Please join in and see if we can reach a consensus, but your reversions, after being warned, are inappropriate.

There's a way to achieve consensus - it includes discussion of the issues and making cogent arguments, not simply hitting the revert button.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you might wonder which version is "preserved" while discussions are ongoing. In some cases, this is problematic, and there are guidelines on how to handle it, but I don't think that applies in this case.

Have you read WP:BRD?

The addition of the phrase though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority" by the IP was BOLD
Vision Thing REVERTed it.
Now we DISCUSS whether it should be included.

We don't leave in an unsourced IP addition while we debate whether to remove it. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am edit warring then so are you. Vision Thing's edit removed 2 things and added 3, but you still added it back three times, against BRD. I asked at Wikipedia_talk:BIOGRAPHY, and it's not OK for someone to come to a BLP to only always makes the person look bad, so stop helping Vision Thing. I was right to revert him. FurrySings (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, my edit is obviously not vandalism, so don't call it that when you revert in the edit summary.[1] FurrySings (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to read BRD. You don't get it yet. The addition has been made and reverted. Now is time to discuss. I can't make it much easier for you; I've laid out a separate subsection for every edit. All you have to do it discuss.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The advice you received at BIO was predicated on the "facts" you provided, which don't stand up to scrutiny. Let's see if you get the same advice after the participants review the actual facts, rather than your summarization.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR? I think FurrySings has violated it... I've suggest at WP:BIO everyone step back & let things cool, & I'm wishing I hadn't stepped in the middle of what looks like a continuing argument over Krugman... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Ghostofnemo has taken the content dispute at 9/11 conspiracy theories to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Your name and discussion with is Ghostofnemo is included there in a collapsed section as part of my statement.[2] You may or may not wish to comment there, but I wanted to at least let you know. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I tried hard to work with GON, and had hopes we would accomplish something, but I failed. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sea level?

Hi, BTW, you probably saw my edit to Current sea level rise. Does that resolve the issue(s)? If not, please post in the thread on the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The referencing now looks fine; I thank you for working this through. Nice work.

Unfortunately, your edit added a condition that I don't believe is supported by the source. You added "at least" to the range. My talk page is clearly not the right place to discuss this in detail; if you simply agree that it isn't supported, and edit accordingly, then we are done. It is possible I missed the support, but if that is the case, I'll bring it up on the article talk page and we can discuss.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place, but I'll post my reply here as a "head's up", and if you take it to the article talk page, please copy and paste this comment since I would say the same thing anyway. Throughout the SYR portion of the AR4 report, in many places, they project numbers and then assign likelihood to those numbers. Please check this specific section (SYR 3-2-1), and don't just look at the table we were talking about in the thread before. Instead, please read the whole page. Note that IPCC says "this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise." (bold supplied) They did not hedge their lower boundary. In law, calling out one term for special treatment but not the other is typically read to say something about both. See also WG1's summary section on sea level projections. In that section they also talk about even higher rates being possible "Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could increase the ice sheet contributions substantially, but quantitative projections cannot be made with confidence" Nowhere do I find any suggestion that they thought flows could reduce below whatever rate they used in their projections. (I saw that defined once, but don't remember what it was). Elsewhere, they discuss carbon-cycle feedbacks, and while some are indeed negative, IPCC is generally talking about net warming (which would lead to more thermal expansion and more melting). Again, no nibbles at that lower number, just the upper one. So IMO it accurately reports what IPCC said when I wrote "at least....but the numbers don't include....(two things that throughout the WG1 report are only discussed in terms of staying the same or increasing)". With no science suggesting those unknowns will fall, "at least" is an accurate presentation of the IPCC report. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

PS whaddayknow? Citing the IPCC report, the New Zealand ministry of environment web page says "Other consequences include more extreme weather events, like floods, storms, cyclones and droughts, and estimated global sea-level rises of at least 18 to 59cm". [3]. For fun, try the following search string at (A) google and (B) Google-scholar

IPCC "sea level" "at least 18cm" OR "at least 18 cm" OR "at least 18 to 59" OR "at least 18-59"

So it does require discussion. I'll bring it up at the article talk page, but I'm occupied at the moment--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi, I was wondering if you would please undelete an old userpage of mine? It was User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox5. The timestamp for deletion reads: 14:58, 6 March 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted "User:SteveStrummer/Sandbox5" ‎ (Author request, unneeded userpage). Thanks! SteveStrummer (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but oh no-! Someone already went back and deleted it again :( SteveStrummer (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I did restore it, but I restored it to it latest stage, which had a deletion request on it. I tried again, let's see if this will stick.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

All good – thank you! SteveStrummer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Brief brief response again, Sadads (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tah for the encouragement

I appreciate the time you took to write the enrouragement. Its cool, I had a good idea it wouldn't go through. I do intend to leave it a while, and then reapply. I'm doing more editing, would probably like to help out with disputes, and generally get a wider skillset with Wikipedia, rather than just writing articles. As mentioned, one of the satisfying things I have done was getting involved in high level mediation over The war of 1812.... ...which is a diabolically politicised article. That required me to get a better grop on policy.

So anyways, I will reapply after leavining it a while. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I have seen more examples than I care to think about, of a very solid editor, not quote ready for admin, who became discouraged after a failed RfA. I do not want that to happen. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

SB

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BTW, this has something to with Overstock.com and something called Naked short selling. Apparently, there is/was some sort of real world dispute which spilled into Wikipedia.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm on top of that. I know what Naked short selling is, have opinions on it (support it), have followed the Overstock saga to some extent.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA stats

Hi Sphilbrick. iI see you recently asked about stats for RfAs. A huge amount of research into all kinds of stats for RfA has been published in both graph and table form with extrapolations and summaries at WP:RFA2011. If you navigate through the pink nav box, you may well find what you are looking for. If not, and if it would be of general interest, I'm sure that either Scottywong or I would be able to organise an extract from the database for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that had exactly the data I wanted.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles

This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi, I was wondering if you could help me with something... my tendency to create animosity in others towards me. You saw a very good example of it at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Born2cycle/dicklyon. I'm coming to you because you were about the only one there who seemed to understand what was going on (and the file was deleted).

I do tend to get involved in a lot of contentious issues, and as a result into many arguments. My approach is to try to persuade people with argument, which is my understanding of how we reach consensus on WP. But sometimes people seem to get into this mindset where they stop AGF and misinterpret everything, which is what happened at that MfD.

Anyway, if you have any suggestions or any kinds of word of advise, I would appreciate it. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Born2cycle, I am completely unfamiliar with this situation, but I'll give you two pieces of advice. If it applies, great. If it doesn't apply, just ignore my post.

When you post something on Wikipedia, ask yourself, "Is this likely to ease tensions or escalate tensions?" If you can reasonably anticipate that it's going to escalate tensions, it's time to reword or not post it.
Explain a point once or twice, but probably not more. If you're in a content dispute with someone and you explain the same point once or twice, either the other person is going to get it or not. If something didn't convince someone the first couple times, it probably never will. The more an argument gets repeated, the more likely it will be ignored.

Like I said, I am completely unfamiliar with this situation. If what I said doesn't apply, just ignore it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That is helpful, Quest, thank you. Nobody has ever put it quite like that. I have to admit that that is not a question I ever ask. I'll give it some thought. A lot of thought, I imagine. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Quest beat me to it, but I support that advice. One additional follow on to the second point - if you find yourself repeating the same point more than twice, the other parties have seen it, and aren't buying it. A change of wording might help, but two other options might help, depending on the circumstances. Option 1 is when you think you understand their point, but there clearly isn't a meeting of the minds, you might try summarizing their point in your words. It might help you understand their point, or , if they disagree with your summarization, it might help you see the differences more clearly. The other option is the mirror image; ask them to summarize your argument, so you can see it through their eyes. Not always successful, but can be enlightening.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow it's gotten worse during the blackout. See User_talk:GTBacchus#So_sick_of_this_bullshit (or [5] as a diff) and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Advice.3F. I find the comment in the latter-most reference from Risker (talk · contribs) to be excellent. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with above. I remember something from psychology class years back that beginning with a point where somebody agrees with you is helpful (since it establishes an initial common ground, and helps them to see you as being right about something) then slowly move it to the position you'd like to make. Doesn't always work, however. Also, lots of words and arguments can get tedious; try to keep your persuasive efforts simple, highly visual, and keep a light-hearted tone. Before plunging into a change, ask for views first; provide edit summaries. And (hardest of all, esp for me) is trying to stay open-minded; what I've found again and again is how others I've argued with here at Wikipedia have turned out to be right, which can be difficult to acknowledge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot to consider, and to integrate in my behavior. Good stuff. Thank you. Much appreciated. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that ANI discussion, another point to consider is that there are degrees of personal attacks. Here's an extreme example, but if you were black and I called you the N-word, that would be an extremely racist and offensive word to use, and I would almost certainly be immediately blocked. OTOH, if I called you a jerk, that's still a personal attack, but it's nowhere as serious and I probably wouldn't be blocked unless I did it repeatedly. Calling someone tendentious is technically a personal attack, but it's not that serious unless done repeatedly. If someone makes a personal attack, it's usually best to ignore it unless it's extreme or done repeatedly. In the case of someone calling you "tendentious" repeatedly, what I would say to them is "If you honestly think that I'm being tendentious, please file a report at DRN, ANI, RFC/U or whatever place you think is appropriate and we can get outside opinion." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I'll handle it that way next time. In the mean time the situation is still escalating; now there is a proposal to block me from all WP:RM discussions, the area where I believe I have the most to offer. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_from_moves_proposal. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that you're spending an awful lot of time arguing over things that aren't that important. I took a brief look at Talk:Catholic_Memorial_School_(West_Roxbury,_Massachusetts)#Requested_move and honestly, does it really matter what the article is titled? Also, it's important to realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. This means living with decisions you disagree with. If something doesn't go your way, accept it and move on. Or revisit the issue 6 months later when people can approach the issue with a fresh mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Junior Achievement

I've removed your copyvio tag from this article (I'm a copyright clerk). I got an edit conflict with you when I went to deny the G12 myself (for much the same reason) so I was already investigating when you listed at WP:CP. Taking the date that website claims to have published (May 2010) then it seems clear to me that it's a backwards copy as the text we had in April 2010 is nearly the same as we've got now. Dpmuk (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I briefly considered reverse copyvio, but as I did not have time to fully research at the moment, decided to report at CP so people like you could look into it. That was quick! Thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not normally that quick! It was just a coincidence that I was already looking at it due to the G12 tagging. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton, DTTR

Hi. I saw your note to Fram at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (diff) citing WP:Don't template the regulars. According to WP:Contributor copyright investigations/20111108#Background, RAN requested notifications. For editors trying to avoid interacting with RAN, templates are neutral and impersonal notifications. If you have a different view based on your correspondence with RAN, you should annotate the instructions at his CCI. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know he wants notification. I think using the standard template is rude, however, by definition, if that is what he wants, then it isn't rude. I adopted a format of making a section, then simply adding items as bullet points. See the bottom section of this. He expressed appreciation for this format, so I think he would prefer something that doesn't clutter up the page. Unfortunately, he isn't as communicative as I would like, but I think simply listing them would be no more work than the template, and achieve a better result.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about clutter. Fram has changed to a plain wikilink with signature. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pythagorean theorem

Hi,

you have recently semi-protected Pythagorean theorem, however, there is apparently some technical problem (since IP's still can and do edit it). Could you please have a look?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a lot of protecting, so odds are I screwed up, will take a look, thanks for the heads up.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news (for me) looks like I didn't screw up. However, I was treading carefully, so only protected for three days, which expired. I see that Maxim has protected again. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks!! Sasha (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Confusion over column name

Hi Phil! The column is to indicate that whether the user was a) contacted about this or volunteered himself/herself, or b) is unaware his/her name is on the list. Technically, no one should be on the list unless they were either contacted or volunteered themselves...I'll remove the column to eliminate the confusion. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee RfC

I have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. If you would like to add yourself as a certifying party and perhaps make a statement, it would be appreciated. Also, if you would like to change the formatting a bit, please feel free. This is my first RfC creation and this also isn't a common type of RfC, so I used a generalized format. Silver seren^C 23:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Central Operatic Society

Hi Spilbrick. I have altered the text again to remove some of the matches but have now got to a stage where more amendments would lead to the text not flowing correctly. Hopefully the bot will be considerate!! Cheers Chrisjbanks (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New edit

Funny I should come across your note on my talk page this morning! I've been thinking about snagging your attention! I've done some substantial editing on an old page—Pedrolino—that I'd like someone to take a look at, and you'd be my ideal man. (The page was and still is mercifully short!) If that someone could compare the old with my new I'd be doubly delighted, but just a look would be v. helpful. Let me know if you don't have the time. Many thanks, whatever your involvement.

I've just returned from the States, by the way, bearing all kinds of rare books and am returning to the assault on the lists in Pierrot. It's a painfully hard business, turning those lists into coherent (and concise) narrative, but I'm hammering at it. Extremely slow work. Beebuk 03:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are people who do it faster—but not as well. Yes, I'll take a look at it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

JAINA

Where would you suggest adding a section on JAINA? I'm guessing that you could have a place for the JEI content, but what about JAINA as the umbrella organization for Jain congregations around USA and Canada?

I think that it would go HERE under TEXTS on the right side... Do you have a suggestion?

I'm a little lost - where is HERE? (And I'm just about to run out for a couple hours, will respond later). --SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I said I'd respond later, I meant to your answer. I can't help you without a little more context.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Compact Linear Collider

Hi Sphilbrick, hope you're doing well. Our department administrator sent the e-mail text from Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' allowing to use any CLIC related images for the Wikipedia page. This happened a week ago and she still didn't receive any response. She wrote a second time, but also got no answer. So I was wondering if we're doing it right way. How should we proceed? Thanks a lot in advance! Gerbershagen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but will look into this in a couple hours.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you followed the right procedure, I'll inquire to see what happened.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, SPhilbrick. We received an e-mail this night, requesting the names of the files which we want to upload. I responded with the list of the file names, so I'll keep you updated when we get a response. Gerbershagen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

Some things work exceedingly fast here, some others at a more leisurely pace. Sounds like progress is occurring, please keep me informed so I can poke my nose in if necessary. Once the new files are upload, there will be a need to add an OTRS ticket number to them. This may be explained, if it isn't I'll help.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sphilbrick, now all the files are uploaded with a correct licence. Thank you very much for all your help and support! Best wishes, Gerbershagen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

Glad I could help, and thank YOU for your contributions. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks!

I don't know where I could find a more conscientious (and helpful) reader than you. I much appreciate all your thoughtful feedback. Yes, you're right: the intro is dense with high-level material. (I would not have used "hypocorism" if a reader of Pierrot had not modified my page with exactly that addition: it's a notch too pretentious, I think, and I'd gladly deep-six it if you think fit.) But I'll wait to see what your colleague says about it all.

The commenter phrases ("as Lea convincingly argues", etc.) are second-nature to me from scholarly publishing, but maybe they're not Wiki-friendly. I'll modify if you think I should.

But thanks once again! I'm in awe of your integrity! Beebuk 00:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Learning a new word is always a nice experience, especially when it is linked so one can read about it easily. That's why I was conflicted about mentioning "hypocorism", because had it occurred further down in the body, I would have been more supportive. As I mentioned, and you realize, the problems was being bombarded by too much new at once, and I trust you understand that those words are second nature to you.

On the style point, I do see it as a scholarly style, and that may well be a plus, but I want to get another opinion. My first request is sitting dormant, so I will poke a little and look for an alternative.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia movement funds dissemination

Hi. Because you recently contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about funding resources, I wanted to invite you to help us create a list of the kinds of resources Wikimedians might need. This is to help generate ideas towards the development of guiding principles for funds allocation in the Movement. More explanation is given here. Your participation there, and that of any others you may know who have sought or considered seeking resource funding, would be much appreciated.

(This is, of course, in relation to this conversation. :)) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I will check it out.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of a place where we could set up an en:wiki discussion on access to paid resources? My user sub-page might not cut it, though maybe I can start another one for now. The first purpose would be to establish exactly what resources are a problem for copyright investigators and how often they would be accessed. Beyond that though, I can imagine that FAC, GAN and DYK regulars would want in if they get a sniff of this, not to mention article writers. I'm going to ask around at my local (large) public library system for some details on how they do web resources for subscribers. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm time constrained at the moment, but I thought someone (maybe Maggie?) suggested bifurcation of the resources_to_help_with_copyvio from the resources_to-help_with_article_writing issues. However, that was in the context of asking for free access, where it seemed that those considering granting the request would be much more supportive of granting access to individuals furthering their goals, than they would be of access to individuals mostly supporting our goals. FAC, GAN and DYK reviewers do have a responsibility to review possible copyvios, but I think it is useful to separate access for the purpose of clarifying that a copyvio is not present, from access to improve the quality of an article. The audiences have overlap, but is not exactly the same. All of which is not an answer to the direct question (where to carry on this discussion)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hit me with your best shot

re: "I'm trying to track down the copyright status of a photo described as coming from the National Historic Landmarks collection. So far, my searches haven't definitely identified what this is, and specifically, whether inclusion in this collection means the photo is pd." "National Historic Landmarks collection" is likely the wrong name, but there's a good chance I can find it. Maybe on HABS (good) or on the NRHP nomination form (not good). Smallbones (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The image in question is File:CampDissapointmentB.jpg.

I posed a question at MCQ, but haven't heard yet.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that name rang a bell; I see you weighed in at this discussion. I wasn't able to determine that you reached a clear consensus, but you comment above hints that you did were not able to persuade the audience that nomination photos are pd.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - just a bit harder than I thought! at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NHLS/Photos/66000434.pdf the black and white version is marked NPS where the photographer's name goes - so it was taken by a National Park Service employee. Therefore in the Public Domain. Also there appears to be a real "National Historic Landmarks collection" - but where, I don't know!

As far as the 2009 discussion - I still think that it is wrong that the NPS doesn't declare these to be public domain - all they'd have to do to be 100% sure is to add it as a requirement to the nomination form. The NPS is allowed (by the submission form) to use the photos for anything THEY want to use them for, including giving them out to anybody who asks. I've talked to folks about submitting photos here and they say "You can use the ones I gave to the government" - they obviously think they were giving up all rights. But you ask the govt - and they just don't want to say. Our copyright paranoia still amazes me, but this isn't the worst case (by far). It's good to be careful about copyrights, but ... Smallbones (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that down. I can now close out a group at CCI. (I agree with you about the submission issue, but don't see a simple resolution.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft

Hi Sphilbrick, I've been working on a new article that I figured would be of interest to you: User:Grondemar/Drafts/List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft. It's still in my userspace until I finish hooking up all of the references, but hopefully by this weekend I'll move it to mainspace and nominate it at DYK and FLC. Feel free to take a look and leave any comments / make any edits you feel are appropriate. –Grondemar 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm in all day meetings today and tomorrow, and headed to NYC for my daughters birthday, so will not be on-line much until later in the weekend, but I will check it out. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)