User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Stepney City Farm

Hi Sphilbrick, Not sure why the following should be considered "item not worth mentioning See Talk" and removed:

A significant change made by the new management was the introduction of a slaughter policy in 2011/12: "The animal policy has been amended to include a slaughter policy, which has laid the groundwork for the team to slowly replace ‘pet’ animals with productive stock".

For anyone interested in City Farms in the UK, including the farm itself, people from the area and London in general, this was a big shift in philosophy and the only significant change in animal policy in 32 years since Lynne Bennet founded the farm. It has caused some divisions in the local community as you can see in some of the comments to the press articles, but the statement is factual and referenced and should certainly be included for visitors and anyone trying to understand the farm's more recent history, compared to its old East-end roots. I have spent a lot of time writing the overall entry for the farm and have affection for it - adding half of the history, all of the portion headed 'Cross Rail' and most of "Lloyd & Leila. I am not local or associated with the farm or some animal 'nut'! Taking this info out it is solely based on opinion, which you can do for sure, but there are many more I believe who would think it should stay in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.44.204 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The place has a lot of policies. I think someone is hyperventilating over the word "slaughter". Are you a city person? To anyone who has worked on a farm, the notion that this would be notable is laughable. It's actually rather sad that they need a policy, but that may be a product of the over-bureaucratic nature of the society we've created. But the notion that a farm occasionally has to kill an animal is so routine it is astounding someone would think it is notable. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please note I'm trying to hold a discussion on the talk page. No one else is joining in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:3G Capital BW low res.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:3G Capital BW low res.png

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

Re [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A7

If you're going to A7 a page in the middle of a deletion discussion can you at least close the AfD? I don't dispute the A7, but it seems in poor form to delete a page that Drmies nominated with the statement: "could have been deleted under A7 but I decided to bring it here". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. Give me a hint, will look into it tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it was "Shishaldin". My apologies; it was User:Ukexpat that displayed poor form by tagging a page for speedy delete in the middle of the AfD discussion. Administrator Drmies opened the AfD, acknowledging that it probably qualified for A7 but wanted to err on the side of caution. At the very least, Ukexpat should have discussed it with Drmies before trying to find another admin to delete it. In any case, would you mind restoring it until the AfD has concluded? Reasonable arguments have been made that "redirect" is the best option. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I was patrolling CSD. I saw the article, decided it qualified, so deleted it. I did not know it was simultaneously at AfD. Should that discussion conclude it should not be deleted, of course I will restore it. Looks like someone feels the best option is to create a redirect, which would not require restoration. (I'm out of town for the day, ironically, I'm giving a presentation about Wikimedia, despite that, will have limited access to Wikipedia today)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope I am not being accused of "deletion forum shopping". As it stood, it was a clear A7, so my naive view was why dick about discussing at AFD?--ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The administrator who nominated it said that he felt AfD was the better course than A7. Tagging a page for speedy deletion in the middle of an open AfD can make a mess of things, in the same way that redirecting or moving the page can. The AfD is closed and I re-created it as a redirect, so all's well that ends well. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Adaalat episodes

Sorry to have tagged the article and gotten it deleted. But a similar article is kept now post the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of C.I.D. episodes (3rd nomination). Would you please undelete this one too? Am asking you to do this as DRV's first step is to request the acting admin to undelete the subject article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I have limited access to Wikipedia today, so have restored it, which should not be construed as an opinion whether this should be kept, simply restoring so it can be reconsidered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well... my opinion is that it should be deleted. But the new consensus says otherwise. I have also removed the speedy deletion tag that i had added on it. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look closely, but it seemed to be a close call. Thanks for the update.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the clerk team!

Hi Sphilbrick. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Again, welcome! Regards, Rschen7754 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Some recent PRODs

Hello Sphilbrick. Today you deleted some articles nominated through the Proposed Deletion process:

1. . G-5, Islamabad
2. . G-6, Islamabad
3. . F-6, Islamabad
4. . F-7, Islamabad
5. . F-8, Islamabad
6. . F-10, Islamabad

I have some queries related to these actions. If I remember correctly all of these PRODs were contested but were repeatedly PRODed by IP editor using the same range used by LanguageXpert, the same reason for which I asked semi-protection but that didn't happen. My mistake here was that I didn't add the "Old prod full" tag on the talk page which probably would have made it easier for you or any other patrolling admin to know that PROD was challenged. But besides that as much as I remember the last PROD tag was added two days ago, so

a). wasn't it supposed to run for another five days?

b). Also the reason presented for deletion, is it a valid reason for deletion? (There were two concerns "Not a important place" and "too short article") specially about an article about a geographical place? I haven't seen an article about a place, whose existence is verified getting deleted. The last thing I was expecting was a redirect/merge to its parent sub division .i.e. Islamabad, in fact I might have done that myself if I couldn't improve them any further.

c). And one last thing, though I don't find it being said anywhere at Wikipedia:PROD but I am still curious that aren't admins who consider deletion of these articles, supposed to verify the claim/reason for deletion presented by the nominator?

I also would like to note here that I am not asking for these articles to be restored, just want to improve my understanding of the PROD and deletion process. -- SMS ^Talk 17:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look closely at the history.

I found the articles in a category, which included Prods dated 6 February. I picked that cat to work on because it was after the seven days.

In addition the article had a notice:

This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.

I made the reasonable assumption that the PROD was ripe, and uncontested.

I've now looked at the history a little closer, and I see it was contested, by you, and the contestation undone. It is a failure of process that this left the article in the category.

Having said that, while towns are deemed notable, administrative sectors are not AFAIK. I doubt it would survive AfD, but of course PROD isn't AfD. I think it is a waste of time to restore, then delete after an AfD, but I think process is important, and it looks like process wasn't handled correctly. If you want me to restore them I will. I should also look into why the declination did not remove them from the cat, but to be honest, I have a number of things on my to-do, and will probably not, unless I see more examples of problems. Arguably, I should inquire somewhere to find out why your declination could be reverted without leaving any indication that there was a contestation of the prod; however, you might consider asking that question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comprehensive answer. No I don't want them to be restored, but I do plan to rewrite them in future. Besides there are a number of redirects left that you may like to delete. -- SMS ^Talk 19:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

your recent inquiry

{{ygm}} NE Ent 01:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Template merge discussion

Over at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 February 17#Template:Infobox basketball biography there is a discssuin to, among other things, merge Template:Infobox WNBA biography into Template:Infobox basketball biography. Personally I think this is the right move long-term, but want to be sure the right adjustments are made in the short run. If you are interested, please add your two cents. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Rikster2, for the heads up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Betty Jaynes (basketball)

I saw her listed on the recent deaths page, and though she was notable and interesting (always a good combination!). Plus I want to start a wider range of articles; for the past few years I have edited/created almost exclusively related to association football but that wasn't the case when I first joined (I initially covered politics, literature, music, other biographies etc.) GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response User:GiantSnowman. She was a very interesting woman. I got to know Betty a little bit over the last few years, and when I last saw her, in New Orleans, she had an extended conversation with my wife, who was a four sport athlete. I'm slightly annoyed at myself, because creating her biography was on my mental to-do list, which I wish I had done while she was alive.

If you have any interest in women's basketball, I'll invite you to the Women's basketball task force, small group with a lot to do. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm glad I could help out. I've joined up to the Women's basketball task force and added it to my watchlist; you might wish to create a 'requested article' list (similar to this) - as I know little about the sport that would be extremely helpful. GiantSnowman 13:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I will add one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks - I take it WBNA players are notable per WP:ATHLETE? GiantSnowman 18:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read that guideline in some time (until now). I usually make sure that any article I start can be justified via GNG. However, glancing at it, I see the WNBA specifically listed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Great; ATHLETE is always a great place to start, to give you comfort in creating an article while bringing up to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Marist Red Foxes [women's basketball]

This appears to be an article on the University athletic programme as a whole, not just the women's basketball team, so unsure why you moved it? GiantSnowman 18:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A mistake. I was creating a list of red links, but when I did so, Marist showed up as a blue link. With my current tunnel vision, forgetting that there is a world outside wbb, I saw that we did have an article on the Marist Red Foxes, and moved it, without looking closely and seeing it was more general.

I moved it back, and trust that double redirect bots will clean up my mess?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom title

Is that a dash, an ndash or an emdash? NE Ent 03:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I confess, I have an unhealthy love of the emdash:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a love of correct titles, never mind what dash. Are we talking about Kevin? There should be no second name in the title, because it should not matter who is the victim whom he addressed. But I will not go to that war and make it "unclean" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt, I share a love of correct titles. I did think about some options, including just calling it Kevin Gorman. Were I to bring such a case, I would likely label it that way. Were I asked for my opinion about a good case name, that is likely to be my recommendation.

However, I was acting in my capacity as a clerk. I don't have a lot of experience—in fact, that is my only action as a clerk. While I am still learning, I think I know that a clerk has to be scrupulously neutral. I saw the discussion about the tense of the word, but I decided that any form of "attack" failed the neutrality. I did consider removing Eric's name, but user:Giano included it, and I did not think that inclusion of a bare name, without qualification, violated neutrality, so I opted to make the smallest edit I could, while addressing the problem. I thought that Giano might object if I removed Eric's name, and I did not think I had a sufficient defense to such a concern, so I left it.

We all should learn from our mistakes. In retrospect, I wish I had given Giano a heads-up at the same time he made the edit. There is no way he could be expected to know that it was an action taken by a clerk, and he may have assumed it was just some busy-body interfering (as opposed to an "official" busybody:) Had I done that, we might have had a conversation about whether the action was the best course, rather than an edit war that ended badly.

I do thank-you for weighing in—this discussion has helped me think through some issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thoughtful answer. I understand that clerk function is one thing, missing people another, - look for sorrow on my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hello S PHILBRICK, I would like to upload the algorithm at page 6 of the article that you can find at this address: http://thyca.org/download/document/409/DTCguidelines.pdf. I think it would be helpful for the wikipedia article on thyroid nodules. Do you think it is possible? Thank youLuigi Albert Maria (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Luigi Albert Maria, the short answer is no, but read on.

There is a copyright symbol in the upper left. (Although it would be subject to copyright even without that symbol) Technically, material licensed with an acceptable license such as cc-by-sa-3.0 is subject to copyright, but unless we see an explicit template or wording identifying that the is a Creative Commons license,w e have to assume there is not.

I wanted to see the diagram, because I thought there might be a chance that it qualifies as ineligible for copyright, but that does not seem to be the case.

However, it is very common for researchers to be interested in wide dissemination of their work, and they might be happy to provide a license for the diagram.

The gory details are at Donating copyrighted materials. However, an example of a permission form can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I see that the author has provided an email address.

One important point of caution - the author has published this in a journal, so very likely has transferred copyright to the Journal. (In fact the copyright owner is not one of the authors, so may be associated with the Journal).If that is not the case, we can accept permission from the author, but we will need a release from the Journal.

However, it may make most sense to start by contacting the author, who has the most incentive to help arrange for permission.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed answer, I will see if it's worth doing all this process! Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope it will be, and I will be happy to help, although I will be away for a few days starting tomorrow. I'd had success asking for people to donate photgrpahs. Doesn't alwys work, but it has several times.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

List of 3D animation software

Could you restore it, please? The PROD has been belatedly contested here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94  Done (Sorry about the timing, I just got home from a trip.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, it wasn't urgent. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Ux

Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Ux has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Universiade

Template:Infobox women's national basketball team - Universiade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

West Sound (AM) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Sound (AM). Since you had some involvement with the West Sound (AM) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TJRC (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

This looks worse than it is but I wanted to let you know I appreciate the effort. I would have said it on the AN page but some fool semi protected it as though that would really stop me if I wanted to post there. I could say it wasn't me, but I told AGK the accounts he blocked accusing of being me or the IP that Jehochman accused of being me weren't and they didn't believe me so I'm not going to bother. I will say this, some people on here will literally stop at nothing to get rid of me. Frankly this project is just not that big of a deal to me. I have a six figure income job, multiple degrees, a family, a house, a car and a neurotic dog who tries to hump the cat on a regular basis. I just don't need this project for validation in my life. I edited because I enjoyed doing it and I felt like I was contributing to something that mattered. I don't feel that way anymore. Wikipedia is a joke, its a waste of time, and worse of all, it will fail because of people like the ones I have been trying to do something about that everyone else want to protect. BTW, this username isn't as random as it appears. Say it out loud, slowly and letter by letter. OU8124URA* (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you had a lot to offer, but something went wrong. I wish I could fix it, but that's not realistic in the short term. Longer term, maybe.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I created several hundred articles over a done, 450, 000 edits, over a dozen featured...but because I think admins should be held accountable when they screw up and because I think Arbcom is a joke, I was branded for life. Oh well, its not like this place needs any help, all the articles are written and there are more than enough people to do all the work (sarcasm intended). Frankly I don't see Wikipedia lasting more than a couple more years before so many people have been run off and there are too few admins to maintain the balance (looking at the backlog at SPI I would say its already happeneing). OU8124URA* (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jean Simmons

There is an IP vandalizing her article. It was semi-protected for 24 hours but as soon as it ended, the IP came back removing sourced material and putting in deliberate errors. Can this page be protected for a month at least? Thank you. I put this up on the original admin's talk page too but I'm not sure when he'll be back....William 14:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. When the IP originally edited out the part about Simmons and her husband Stewart Granger becoming United States naturalized citizens, I decided to check for a source. Maybe the IP was right. But with the help of Google News Archive I found a news article confirming it. So I restored the bit to the article and added a IC referencing the article I discovered. The IP then took that out two times before the page was page protected the first time. After the page protection came off, the IP didn't just remove the part about Simmons naturalization but changed when she and Granger got divorced and removed mention of her marrying Richard Brooks. I restored the article again plus added another IC with a article stating when Simmons and Granger got divorced. A month's protection will hopefully send this vandal on his way.

I once read that the reason registration isn't required, is that it makes the detection of vandals easier. Namely that IPs do more vandalism than registered users. User Carrite on her User page has a funny comment '"Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." Cheers!...William 15:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IPs do have a higher percentage rate for vandalism, but it is still well under half, so based on pure odds, a random IP edit is probably not vandalism. In fact, I'm not convinced the edits you reverted were vandalism, in the sense of deliberate errors. My guess is that they either truly believe it isn't true, or believe it should not be mentioned for some reason. However, if they are unwilling to explain via edit summaries and/or edits to the talk page, it is acceptable to revert. I hope they will create an account and/or contribute an explanation via the article talk page. Perhaps they have a good reason we are missing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I've done most of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brianis19 articles 21 through 40, so please refresh your page to ensure you don't duplicate my work. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

?? Did you have an edit conflict, or is this a heads up to make sure I don't have one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I had one; that's when I noticed you were working on the same section. I am going to stop for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You've done a lot! I hadn't known about the working template - I'm on pause now with some other things to do, if I return, I'll try to use the template.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

The average wait time for Edit Requests is apparently 26 hours. Can't we just merge Request Edits into the same queue? This way we can consolidate queues into a few number so they are easier to manage, rather than doing the opposite.

BTW - as you probably remember, I am a frequent COI contributor/Request Edit user/ I actually created a lot of our Request Edit templates. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know you. Occupied at the moment, will respond as soon as I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As you are well aware, we can be a bureaucratic place. This can be both good and bad. I'll confess that handling edit requests is not an area I've concentrated on, I do more work in copyvio and other areas.

I didn't realize, until just this minute, that Category:Requested edits and Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests were two different places. While your suggestion has some merit, I'd like to see if I can learn why we separate them. It may be for a good reason, it may also be for a reason that used to be good but is no more.

I also have to check a couple other things, and will report back shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's one of the things I wanted to check:

some admins keep {{Admin dashboard}} open or at least handy.

Requested edits as well as edit requests are in the list, although I hadn't really thought about the distinction prior to today.

I know that the template code turns certain categories red under certain situations. For example "Attack Pages" and requests for help turn red if there are any.

CSD turns red if the number reaches 100.

I thought there was a limit of 50 for some cats, but I seem to be wrong.

The Requested edit cat registered with me only because it hit triple digits.

My guess is that editors and admins who specialize in working in edit requests are more apt to start with the first cat in the list, which may explain why the last of the four is getting less action.

Before proposing a merger of two cats (which will raise inevitable issues—why these two,why not all four, why not three of four why not...) I'd like to propose one or both of two other changes which may accomplish the real goal of getting the backlog down.

My best option is to add the code to turn the cat red when it exceeds some value. My thinking is that we should start at 50, but after we get it down a bit consider 25 as a better long term value. Another option is to change the order, so that Requested edits is listed before edit requests.

Please share your thoughts while I think through where to open the discussion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, Request Edits are one of four items that show up in a specific area of the admin dashboard. The other three turn red when they reach a certain backlog, but Request Edits do not? If that's the case, I see no reason not to make it act just like the others.

You may also be interested in this idea to create an AfC-like wizard for submissions by COIs, in order to improve the quality/format/reviewability of factual corrections, while placing plenty of warnings and discouragements to attempting to write articles where one is unlikely to be neutral.

We should keep in mind that COIs like myself are WP:NORUSH violators. I'm going around begging editors to review my AfC submission because I don't want to wait 30 days in the AfC backlog, but it would be the same wait even if I didn't have a COI. All our queues are backlogged. We should expect no different here. But we should have the process and criteria as developed as other queues and the backlog not ridiculous (I've seen ones 6 months old). CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly (re turning red). The attack and help queues turn red. I thought one or more of the edit request queues turned red, but I was wrong. However, I plan to propose it. I will also check out the wizard proposal. Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to find some time to do something tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to comment without understanding what it looks like, but I wouldn't escalate COI requests to the same urgency as... what I think are the types of things you are saying flash red. I remember a time where the Request Edit queue was 1-3 items, so there was never a need to manage it much before. Awareness/recruiting is necessary for any new or growing process, as are processes, structure, and coding. + it is easy to get editors riled up over whether they love/hate paid editing, but much more difficult to find ones that will put in the hours of hard-work and elbow grease to find meaningful (even if mediocre/incremental) solutions.

I did about 30 Request Edits a while back and felt it really gave me perspective. First it was a very draining experience, because so many were unhappy I didn't make the edits they wanted. Second, after droning over 10 poor, promotional, BS requests, I assumed the 11th was also bad, even if it wasn't actually - the same assumption that is often applied to me. It's a bad reflection on my character that so many editors AGFd for so long even when I gave them so many reasons not to, yet I can't seem to bring myself to AGF as hard as they did.

Anyways, if User:DESiegel does successfully create a policy/guide on how company articles should be, what is and isn't promotional and so on, that would also have the effect of providing a guide for Request Edits, because a lot of editors don't have the confidence to know which edits to accept and often do it wrong - adding promotion or failing to remove poorly sourced controversies. CorporateM (Talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right that dealing with COIs may benefit from experienced editors more so than other areas, but I also think it would be against Wikipedia's principles to actually prohibit in-experienced editors on the basis that they are more likely to get it wrong. Anyways, I'm glad you brought up the general issue - let me know if there is any way I can help, without getting too involved in such a way that may seem inappropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Heading out of town for a couple days, will mull this over and come back with some thoughts. I appreciate your input, as it is invaluable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)