User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User Wikidea

Please go over to his talk page (The one I pinged you to or He works on law articles and templates. Repeated he violates clear WP policies of WP:Seealso,WP:Navbox, to name a few. I cleaned up his work, he is reverting all of it. I told him if he doesn't like the policy or guideline, to take it to the talk page of that guideline or policy. Hasn't done it. Consensus is no See also redlinks and no external links in templates. I can give you examples of his work, or just look at his edits this afternoon (December 5th) to see what I mean....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The above user is not acquainted with the way the law pages and templates are working. We made those specifically so that they could have links: it's a different situation to other templates. Generally also, this above user is removing a lot of important information that functions as referencing, and this serves no purpose. Wikidea 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Please state where there is a consensus for your view regarding see also and navbox. BTW I'm not new to WikiProject Law. Been a member since 2012[1]. The WikiProject Law userbox has been on my User page that long. Your referencing leaves much to be desired. I've seen where you've referenced[2] to Wikipedia articles and that violates WP:CIRCULAR which is a policy that states 'Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources.' But you're doing that too. I'm going to wait till SP replies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't say you aren't finding something useful, and I don't think you intend to hinder development. But Wikipedia:Red link is very important on the policy of red links. It's just really counterproductive what you've done: I'm astonished. Need to see the purpose of the rules, not just literal interpretation (as I've said on my talk page). Wikidea 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to look into this, but if you look at my contributions, you'll see I only have a handful of edits in the last week - it has been very busy. The earliest I can even read your post is tomorrow afternoon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You can see what's being done on EU law, US corporate law, English contract law and pages like it - the red links are just the tiniest part of a very large project with literally thousands of case pages being created, and dozens or hundreds of templates: William has simply been mistaken about this red link issue in this case, though I'm sure he's been doing very important work (as I've said) clearing away the "dead wood" in other areas: it's just different in this case for law topics. I'm sorry you're embroiled and busy outside Wikipedia. Wikidea 11:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, this morning he removed the deletion notices on two templates of his I nominated for deletion. Here[3] and here[4]. I will give you examples of his ignoring WP:Circular, WP:Seealso, WP:Navbox, and WP:Categorization later today. This morning I have an appointment at 10 Florida time and won't be home till early afternoon earliest....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is one example of See also[5], One of [[WP:Navbox][6] which says no EL in templates, and one of WP:Circular[7] where he restored an instance of using wikipedia as a source for his article. These are quick examples and I can give lots more. Now I am going.13:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The deletion templates can stay if William is really so adamant - but it's just a matter of time before other people see sense through this. On the points directly above, the text he wanted to delete was part of the judgment (in Lubbe)! I'm sorry, but this is just bizarre, and William is clearly making no attempt at all to understand any subject matter he is deleting. For the Macmillan page, again Wikipedia:Red link. Completely mistaken. Wikidea 13:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Red link, which you keep pointing to, says- Red links generally are not included in See also sections, nor are they linked to through templates such as or Error: no page names specified (help)., since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles.
SP, two things for you to note- Wikidea in his edit summaries says the information is important but if so where is the verifiability per WP:V? In almost every case there was none in the see also deletions I made. Second, so far as the external links in templates, there was a recent discussion on just that here[8], that seems to uphold no external links in templates. They are meant for navigation between WP articles.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I've opened a discussion on here - which you're welcome to contribute to. Wikidea 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance yet, and I have a meeting this evening, so I'll try in the morning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, SP. When you have time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
As I promised more examples of reversions by Wikidea in violation of wikipedia policies.

WP:Circular- here[9] and here[10]. Note how the articles refers to another wikipedia article with the word 'See' in the IC and the IC being a link to another WP article.

Note the 2nd of those edit summaries could be a violation of WP:CIVIL by hinting I would be a vandal for deleting something that is clearly upholding a wikipedia policy. To quote- "I'm afraid this user seriously misunderstands law, and I really hope this stops - or it'll be vandalism"

Note- Those were the only edits I did to correct Circular in Wikidea's articles but there are other cases of it that I didn't get around to. He has also created over a half dozen articles without any references. A wikipedia editor other than me brought it to his attention over two years ago in a talk page post here[11]. All but one of which is still unreferenced.

More cases-

WP:Seealso- here[12], here[13], and here[14] See also says no redlinks in those redlinks in those sections. Obviously what is there to see also if no article exists.

WP:Navbox- here[15], here[16], here[17], Navbox also says no external links in templates. This matter was discussed not too long ago either at the related talk page.

Please don't forget he removed[18] the deletion tags off[19] two templates I nominated for deletion and voted twice[20] in both[21] TFDs. All in violation of WP policies in regards to deletion discussions.

I await what you think about all this. Honestly, I think Wikidea's behavior, which may or may not be considered a case of WP:OWN, merits a ANI discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

General response

My apologies for the delay, I'm finally getting back to look at this. I see quite a bit of text above and a number of issues. Let me start with some general thoughts on red links. As a general introduction, I'll observe that our highly decentralized approach to building an encyclopedia has many pluses but some minuses. The ability of just about any editor to make changes to guidelines and policies is simultaneously a positive and negative. The positives may be obvious, but a negative is that, without a central editorial board, we can find ourselves saying the opposite a close to the opposite thing in two different places. Another general comment is that this place has evolved a lot over the last 15 years. Policies and procedures which made perfect sense in the first few years of the development may be outdated now, and sometimes it takes time for the text of policies to catch up with the change in practice.

With that as background, I think the practices of red links have changed over time for the better. In the early days of the encyclopedia liberal use of red links made a lot of sense. The example I like to give is that at some time there may have been an editor working on an article about the solar system before the article about Jupiter had been written. It was perfectly appropriate to red link "Jupiter" with the rationale that we certainly should have an article about the planet, it should be started soon, and many many readers have the capability of starting that article. The red link served as a way to invite a reader to start the article.

In contrast, the situation today is a little different. While we are far from our goal of a summarization of human knowledge, a lot of low hanging fruit has been started. While only a tiny handful of articles have reached a point where they might be considered adequate as is, there are fewer articles for which any reasonable person would say any decent encyclopedia must have an article about the subject. For example, I know nothing about the "Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission" case, and it may well deserve to have an article, but I don't think the average reader will be stunned to find that such an article has not been started. In addition, while a significant proportion of readers encountering a red link such as "Jupiter" have the expertise to at least start an article, only a tiny proportion of readers would be both able and interested in writing an article about some legal case.

The phrase "Good red links help Wikipedia" was added to the guideline in 2007, a day closer to the beginning of the encyclopedia than to the present. I don't disagree with the phrase but I think the community view of what constitutes a good red link has transformed over time. Note that WP:RED says " a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic ..." And the word is "should" not "could". I think a red link should generate the reaction "I can't believe we don't yet have an article about this" not "this subject has enough written about it in reliable sources to merit an article".

Another important transformation in the processes of Wikipedia is a growth of wiki projects. Early on, when there were no wiki projects, a red link was the best way of identifying a subject that deserved expansion. As we evolved, and knocked off the low hanging fruit, we created wiki projects for editors with special abilities and interest to discuss various subjects including needed articles. Note that the wiki project the law is barely 2 years older than the addition of that phrase to the guideline. I think a wiki project is a great place for like-minded editors to get together and make list of subjects deserving articles. But I think that's a better approach than including red links in articles and templates. The very nature of navigational templates means that there may be some cases where most items have articles but a few are missing. A few red links and a template may be acceptable, but a template that is mostly red links probably ought not to exist, and should be a sub topic within a wiki project. Once a substantial number of the articles have been created navigational template make sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Next steps

Doing my best to ignore William's nonsense above, this sounds fair. But then, people just need to delete - at most - not the reference, but the red link - those two brackets "" "" but not what's inside them! There's no case for deleting whatever reference there is, you just de-link it. That's the problem. Wikidea 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am thoroughly sick and tired of your behavior towards me. Your use of misconceived, vandalism, lack of understanding, and more, and just above William's nonsense in response to edits or things I've written. You are making this personal. SP, why is this constant unending behavior not all a violation of civil and a blockable offense?

─────────────────────────Again my apologies for not addressing the sooner. @Wikidea:@WilliamJE: I would like both of you to start with the assumption that you've linked a lot of information on my talk page and I haven't had time to read it all. I did see some comments on red links, which prompted me to write the general response.

If there's name-calling by either side I want it to stop.

I don't see either editor attempting to make the Wikipedia worse, I see two diligent hard-working editors both interested in improving the encyclopedia, but having different views on how certain specific things should be handled.

Let's start with a specific subject and discuss it. Would you rather talk about circular, or templates with redlinks or something else?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

SP, I want to hear you views on circular and navbox aka external links in templates (Note I never removed any redlinks in the concerned templates unless it was immediately preceded by 'See' as in see this because obviously there is nothing to see) that I addressed. I do see your reply concerning Seealso. Thank you for taking the time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll comment soon on circular. When you say "navbox aka external links" do you mean, for example, Template:Clist fair terms ? --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did. A couple of quick points. Templates are meant to 'facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia'. WP:NAVBOX makes clear that 'external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion)." There was a talk page discussion on EL in navigation templates here[22] not too long ago....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked for comment on this on the Wikiproject law talk page here. What William's suggesting is simply mistaken - we have templates specifically made to have external links, and creating drop down box templates for cases and the link to primary sources. Thousands of students and lawyers use this. I just don't get why anyone would want to frustrate that - I do apologise, William for making you upset, but it wasn't like I didn't try to explain from the start - like here. Wikidea 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks in See also

@Wikidea: I first want to emphasize that while William pinged me for help in this dispute, either William or I can point you to situations where I have disagreed with William, sometimes strongly, so he is not addressing me because he thinks I will automatically take his side.

I looked at this edit more or less at random. I see the addition of a red link to a see also section. Wikidea, If I read your edit summary correctly, where you said " this is important information. I'm astonished that this user has spent three days deleting important information", I don't understand your position. Providing a link to an article it doesn't exist hardly qualifies as important information. It is possible that the case identified in the link is a very important case and maybe there will be an article someday, maybe even soon. But until it exists, it doesn't add much to the article. That's an argument on general principles. I believe our guideline strongly discourages red links in a see also section, so you would need an extraordinary argument to explain why that guideline ought to be ignored. Perhaps you are arguing that this specific case is very important to this article. If that's the case, I don't dispute it but it doesn't yet exist. If you have plans to write that article go ahead and write it and add it when it is done. If you do not have plans to write the article but think it ought to be done, as my general response about suggests, the best course of action is to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law and propose it as an article worth developing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so there it's an important reference that relates to the case page (e.g. the Corbin book). William's thinking that "if it's got a red link, it should be deleted". So three points, either:
(1) create the page, don't delete the link - and leave it for other editors, or at the very least, and if you absolutely must
(2) take away the brackets, so that it doesn't link, but leave the reference.
(3) if you really, really object, move it to the references section.
So for another example, here William deletes two perfectly good references embedded in the text - there's simply no thought going into this, but mechanical application of an apparent rule (which is a general policy, not made for the law pages). I was happening to actually work on creating those very pages myself - one I did the other day; I would've had time to have done the other if I hadn't been distracted by..,. Wikidea 00:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't yet had a chance to look at your contributions, but I do see you have substantial contributions and have been around for a long time. However, I'm puzzled by this comment. It doesn't matter whether the pages are created or not, it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a reference. When you say it is "a general policy not made for the law pages" you imply that general policies can be trumped by local rules. That is not the case. There are many cases where wiki projects, for example, set up standards for notability that are very specific to the subject matter, but the intent is to provide specific advice not to override general policies. If you were a new editor I would think you simply misunderstood how things work, but you been around for quite a while, so can you explain what you mean on the chance and misunderstood it.
Regarding your list of three points: if a red link occurs in regular text, there are times the right thing to do is simply remove the bracket so it is no longer a red link. But that doesn't apply to references. A reference must be an external reliable source. If it is an internal link to Wikipedia it is not a reliable source. (That might be some rare edge cases in articles about Wikipedia itself, but that doesn't apply to law cases.)
In the case of Corbin, it appears you may want to use a recognized book as a reference but if so it ought to be properly constructed as a reference not as a link to an article about the book. This is editing 101. I don't expect a brand-new editor to know all this but I'm struggling to understand how someone with your experience doesn't know this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikidea: One of the reasons I created subsections was so that we could keep similar issues together. I created a subsection for "Redlinks in See also", but while your response starts with that edit, you switch over to a different edit, with a different issues. Unfortunately, I responded to both items, so I am also guilty of conflating issues. I may look into creating a separate page so we can have some organization.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If the Corbin book is a reference for the article, it belongs in the reference section, not in the See also section because it is not a section for references but links to wikipedia articles on related/similar topics. As a see also, it was a redlink partly.
BTW, listing the Corbin book in the references section or a further reading section is fine with me. I've used non internet sources as references. Here[23] and here[24] are just two examples....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, the way legal references work is different to what you've suggested above. In the reference example on the EU page, it's not using Wikipedia as a reference, it's the case - and then the case citation afterwards - which is the reference. And, I didn't say that local rules "trump" general policy. I'm saying general policy allows for this; and not maybe and contestably, but definitely and clearly. Wikidea 10:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps everything that I'm saying can be summed up in this. Instead, enjoy a nice warm drink in this cold weather! Wikidea 12:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI, that You_tube wouldn't play (not in this country)
I'm not in agreement on the use of references. I do accept that you are making good faith efforts, but I want to make sure policies are followed (or modified if there is something better). I'm checkign with one of our legal experts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, that was a good move by you to see what NewYorkBrad's view is....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, where do we stand on this?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I had hoped that NYB would either way in or suggest someone to contact. While I think your observations are valid, I think it is worth getting input from someone with a legal background. I just provided a gentle prod to NYB, and I will separately follow up with someone else who might be able to weigh in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I do anything at all? Like removing the See also redlinks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I am frustrated that my attempts to get other opinions on the subject haven't worked out the way I had hoped. I think your observations are on point. I'm trying to square the fairly clear guidelines and policies, coupled with established paradigms, against the obvious usage by law articles with little pushback. I'm going to try again, but my initial reaction is that of the three things you've observed, use of Wikipedia articles in references, use of external links in templates, and red links in see also, the last is the clearest. While there have been some limited attempts to justify external links in templates, I don't recall seeing anyone attempt to justify red links in see also. I urge you to go slowly, but I support your removal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
SP, not using wikipedia as a reference aka WP:CIRCULAR isn't a guideline, but one of Wikipedia's core policies WP:V. Take for instance this revert[25] done by Wikidea. They restored three references that were all to wikipedia articles. WP:Circular, which is a subchapter of WP:V, says clearly that is something not to do. Furthermore, one of those references that was restored, was to an article- The Moorcock that itself is unreferenced....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did say "guidelines and policies" --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
My sincere apologies, SP....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is really not a big deal. The odd thing is when I started to write my comment I thought about whether to just say guidelines or guidelines and policies and when I saw your response I thought I had only mentioned guidelines. Some I am happy that I got it right. Now let's hope that some editors can get it right. I tracked down another lawyer and asked for review but I'm not overly encouraged by the initial response. You may have noticed I made an edit to one of the articles. My preference would be to get some agreement from some regular editors that there are no valid reasons supporting exceptions to policies or guidelines, but if we can't get people to weigh in, we may have to make some edits and then address it through dispute resolution if there is a dispute. I will repeat again I urge you to move slowly. My experiences that editors, even when following the rules, get in trouble if they attempt to apply them too quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you for the invitation to the lively discussion. The main issue that both side seem to have is the amount of red links. As I understand it, the issue is more of style. I suggest to not have too many red links in a law article because it adds questions in the minds of lay readers. A cleaner copy of the article is better. Then, for the more professional reader, the external links should not be in the body but in a see also or external links section, such as the text of the case reported at Cornell University. I am more focused on readability for the lay reader than a professional. But, once again , this is a style issue.Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Sphilbrick, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikidea's community sanction

Hello Sphilbrick, I became aware of the redlink issues in EU law articles by seeing your post at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Need some help involving law articles. You may not be aware that User:Wikidea is still under an editing restriction, per User:Wikidea/Community sanction: "Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected pages or set of pages." If you think he should be warned by an administrator under this restriction, let me know. In my opinion, Wikidea can avoid being blocked or restricted from editing if he will make an appropriate promise about future edits. For example, he can agree to make no edits which add redlinks to pages about EU law without first getting consensus on a talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: There are several issues involving Wikidea's work here at WP. Redlinks isn't the biggest of them. What I see them as-
1- His using wikipedia as a source in the articles in violation of WP:Circular.
2 That some of his articles he is creating are totally unsourced. I know 2 off the top of my head, but the total is at least in the 6-10 range.
Everything said, I don't want to see Wikidea sanctioned. Just that he conform the article he does to the guidelines and policies at WP. Much of which I raised above.
SP, how does this this, if in anyone, change the status of the issues I raised. External links in templates, WP:Circular, and seealso. Can I go to work on these problems or are you still wishing me to go slow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:Thanks for the information Ed. I did not know about the editing restriction, that's helpful to know. I haven't yet determined that the editor is disruptive, but quite a few edits do not conform to what I believe are acceptable editing guidelines. I am trying, unsuccessfully, to determine whether some consensus of editors agreed that these violations of guidelines constitute acceptable exceptions.
To William, I still urge you to move slowly but that doesn't mean doing nothing. The following is I believe an unwritten but accepted paradigm: if you see something you think violates a guideline incorrect it most of the time nothing will happen, on occasion someone will disagree you talk it out and reach a consensus. However, if you see a violation of an editing guideline that involves hundreds or thousands of edits and undertake to revert them all, someone will object. I think it would be wise to start with one of the clearest situations, red links in see also sections, remove a few with a clear edit summary and wait to see if anyone responds. If no one comes along with a link to a discussion which alleges it is an acceptable exception, we can move on.
I think the red links in see also are the clearest for the following reason: they invite the reader to click on a link that takes you nowhere. This is arguably not just useless but worse. A proponent might argue it suggest a future article, but I don't view that is an acceptable reason for violating the guideline. I think the templates with external links are a bigger challenge. Someone actually created the template they have been used in many articles without apparent objection so I am hoping we get more input on why these were created and whether they should remain. In contrast to a red link, and external link and a template actually provides the reader with some useful information. We have to weigh the value of the additional information against the breaking of the paradigm that readers are not lead outside Wikipedia without warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
From the date that was 6 years ago, unrelated, and I'm amazed - I'd completely forgotten about that particular episode. Let me just state again (on the red link) issue, that it's important because it allows the encyclopedia to be expanded: at the very least, don't delete references, just move them from the see also section. I know deleting is easy, but at the very least move not delete. Wikidea 17:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, can I add, with reference to the point you raise about EU law being a "disaster" on Newyorkbrad's page, of course it is - not usable in the sections you mention, but it's getting there. Literally, you'll see in a completely different page in 3 and a half months if you can just please have some patience and faith (as I suggested on Talk:European Union law). If you want to email me, then perhaps I can give you some non-anonymous assurance. Wikidea 17:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Sp, Wikidea is reverting my removals of redlinks (or nonlinks) in see also sections. See here[26] and here[27]. As you stated above, you didn't see a problem with the removals. He is also making personal attacks in his edit summaries as seen here[28].

To me he is violating the sanctions by being disruptive....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not true at all. Look at the edits: I've simply taken away the link. As I (patiently, courteously, in good faith and trying to find a compromise) stress for the third time, don't remove the references - if you have to just remove the link which makes it red. You can shift it to the References section. Another example, which I've post on at Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. And here is an excellent example of why you shouldn't remove them at all. It's completely unfair to bully and threaten me as a mechanism in this debate with that 6 year old episode. You've made this completely personalised under the heading above. Perhaps if you're fair minded we can actually discuss it on Talk:Tulk v Moxhay. I'm talking to three non-lawyers now - I really think it'd be a good idea to leave it to people who are informed to discuss. But I'm spending an unbelievable amount of energy on this, and it stops from productive editing. Wikidea 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi to all. How about instead of a external link reference create an inline citation with an active link to the case on a third party open website like Corrnel University or WikiSource? That way it looks cleaner and a lay reader or professional can go to the source for more information. This way we can have it both ways to improve readability and have a link to the document.
The back and forth about adding and removing red links is a minor issue of style (IMO) and not by itself disruptive. Also, I am very very gently reminding all to not use terms like "act like a grownup" in the edit summary because that is disruptive. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Both editors to want to improve law articles and I compliment them on that because it is a needed topic. But, let us all find common ground of no red links and an inline cite. That is my modest proposal. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I just changed the above example of the external ref link to an inlince cite for the article of Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. for ref number 9. Lexis/Nexus uses green, yellow, red color coding for the history of the cases and I do not want a professional, who is not very fimilar with a red link and who sees a red link to follow that same color coding. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

CMR Xmas greeting.jpg
Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed


Happy New Year .jpg
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

Restore Gnopaste

The page Gnopaste was an orphan since September 2008. You deleted this page on November 7, 2015. Please restore this page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I'm very open to reasons for restoration, but you provided none. Noting that it is a long time orphan is an argument against restoration. What are the arguments in favor of keeping it? I see an article with no significant claims and not a single reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)