User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Talkback

Greetings. I am Roc Ordman, a nutrition professor at Beloit College. My students are required to edit wiki pages on nutrition for my class, adding key discoveries published recently in peer-reviewed nutrition journals that they cite during their wiki editing. I hope I may call on you for assistance as they try to get their edits posted on wikipedia pages. Here is the link to what they are working on this term: http://chemistry.beloit.edu/Ordman/classes/cls/c12701wiki/wikitopics.html Thanks, Roc Rocordman (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rocordman, are you familiar with Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects? It contains some helpful advice for teaches whoo wish to use Wikipedia as part of a class. this is highly encouraged, but some such efforts don't go well, so we've provided some advice to help the process.

I am aware of it but not an active participant. I'm curious why you contacted me. I do like to be helpful, although I will have some time challenges over the next four weeks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rokkaku Yoshiharu

Hello, I'd like to know more about why the article Rokkaku Yoshiharu was deleted. I saw the reason given as "unambiguous copyright infringement", but was it necessary to delete it? I worked on it at some point, and I can assure you, I have never plagiarized. So, I have 3 questions:

• If some editor had recently plagiarized another wiki-site, then couldn't the article have been reverted to an earlier, acceptable state?
• Or if not, why couldn't the plagiarized text have been deleted, leaving only a stub?
• If not, then when I am ready to write an article on the same name from scratch, how do I do this when the article has been deleted?

- Boneyard90 (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Boneyard90, regarding your first question, that often happens, and yes, we can revert to an earlier version. Sometimes that is missed, so it is good to ask. However, I checked the initial version, created in 2006, and it is a close paraphrase of this site.

As for cleaning, that is something we do when it can be done while still leaving something of substance. However, most of the content is a paraphrase, I only see a sentence or two, that would survive, which wouldn't make a suitable stub.

It also doesn't have a single reference. While that used to be acceptable, it isn't any more, so if you create a new article, please make sure you include some references.

As for recreating, you are welcome to do so. Please make sure to start in a userspace page, or in the new Draft space, and make sure it is at least minimally acceptable, with some references, then move it to Rokkaku Yoshiharu.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for the response. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

g12

I saw you deleted one of my g12 noms. That user has been creating a large number of articles, all copied from that same source. I made a post on ANI, and he seems to have stopped since I started nominating his articles, but it may require some intervention. also there may be a WP:CIR issue, with some templates he has created that seem malformed, but I am not an expert on templates, so I have not taken any action on those. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 I deleted a number of items today. Can you identify which one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Selsky&action=edit&redlink=1 is the one I was referring to. Looks like Diannaa got to the rest. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I found one that had been missed, gone now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For your information regarding: Association for Asian Performance

Hi there, I noticed you had deleted that article a while ago for being a copyright violation (the article you deleted was not created or edited by me). I am creating articles related to the USA recently, so I noticed this didn't have an article so I made one. I just wanted to inform you that a new article is up there. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 10:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sintaku Thanks for the heads up. Looks OK so far although you might want to look at the last sentence for awkward wording. (The use of the word "award" as a verb and a noun in close proximity.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it somewhat, it is a bit hard since I don't know if they are the ones who created the award or are one of the people who are involved in giving the award. Thanks. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Parks and Rec s6 copyvios

Hi Sphilbrick. I just wanted you to be aware that Brianis19 is possibly socking, editing as User:Briguy 21. Figured you should know, as you were more involved in the incident than I. It does not appear that the edits are the same, but in and of itself, socking should not be done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but sock detection is one of my weak points. I doubt I will be helpful, so you might want to share this with someone else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just making you aware, as you were involved in that previous, separate investigation. I'd say, just be aware of the pages they frequented, if you can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you could identify the previous investigation. The name is not ringing a bell, nor does Parks and Rec s6 mean anything to me, so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry! This investigation for copyright investigations. You posted on my talk page regarding the users edits on Parks and Recreation (season 6). I just wanted you to know that a user named Briguy21 edited that page today, and it bears a very similar resemblance to the user that got blocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's embarrassing. Thanks. Now I remember you. 'll look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at that editor. You might be right that it is the same one. I didn't see any sign of copyvio edits. That doesn't mean it is OK to sock, but it reduces the concern.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianis19. Also on a separate request, I was wondering if you might be able to protect a page for me? I was hoping you could add semi protection to Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The request is two-fold: the film is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the films garner high page views and are very susceptible to vandalism. This film premiered last night, and will be releasing shortly, so given experience, the IP vandals will be out in full force. I am hoping to prevent that before it starts (as has been done on recent MCU films before their release). I know protections should not be punitive, but these edits will prevent the hard working editors like myself, from adequately adding the necessary info for when it releases. The second reason, is a sequel date was revealed yesterday as well, so that will most likely bring in more vandals. I hope you will make this request. If I may suggest, protection through the end of April should be sufficient. If you aren't willing to go with semiprotection, could pending changes protection be an option? Thanks for that consideration. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the SPI. Regarding protection, the word you are looking for is pre-emptive. Admins are reluctant to protect absent actual evidence of vandalism. I think it happens on rare occasions, but very rare. I glanced, and see a couple instances, but not many. I added it to my watch list, and if I see some, I'll try to be quick on the trigger. Ping me if I miss it. I should be online a fair amount the next few days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome for the SPI. And thank you for the watch. I think we may be good for now. And I will give you a ping if I feel it is getting bad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Women's Basketball Pages

As a quick heads up, I am currently working on creating a season page for each automatic qualifier that may not have one created yet. It will take a bit of time, but I hope to finish two or three a day. If I'm able to do so, I will have all the automatic qualifiers done before the Women's Tournament starts next Saturday. After finishing the automatic qualifiers, I will work on creating pages for the other NCAA Tourney teams that don't have one. When that is finished, I will move on to the WNIT teams, and finally the WBI teams. In the end I will create a page for every team, regardless or whether or not they make the post-season, but the teams in the post-season are currently my main focus. The majority of the others won't have their pages created until after the NCAA Tourney is complete. Ironically I had already created pages for Prairie View A&M and Texas Southern, and one of those two teams will emerge as the SWAC Champion this season. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm in awe. (I have some work challenges, and hope to be contributing more soon.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Uterus and vagina no captions.png

When deleting files as F8, please first make sure that all revisions are on Commons, as F8 only applies to those revisions which have been copied to Commons. The easiest way to copy old revisions of a file is to use http://tools.wmflabs.org/magog/oldver.php which copies over old revisions automatically. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I try to be through, and sometimes it seems I am more than thorough , but I guess not this time. There were roughly 30 files all nominated (I thought) by the same editor. I painstakingly checked every one of the first 10, then spot checked several more, but it seemed obvious that the editor had copied all over first. The odd thing is, I though this was one I checked, because it didn't seem like the others. I must be wrong. Thanks for the link to the file mover, although I thought they had all been moved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration requests page

I find it hard to find my way about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and the cases. For instance, the case concerning AGK has recently been declined, but how can one find the record of that? It doesn't appear anywhere on that page, and "Recently closed cases" says there are none. I must be missing something? JohnCD (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnCD , you can find any declined case recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined_requests. In this specific instance, it is the first item in the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

Surely you mean "removing" and not "deleting" here[1], right? Just for future reference, since all requests are archived. Risker (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Risker, I followed clerk procedures specifically the section Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#How_to_action which specifically suggests the language I used. I'll be happy to raise the question to see if our language should be tweaked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Risker,I've edited the process pages to reflect the better wording. See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Minor_tweaks_to_wording_-_edit_summary.2C_and_list_order the talk page for the discussion. Thanks for the suggestion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

For editing the page Studley, Inc. I truly appreciate it. You mentioned not having access to a particular book and therefor could not add a reference regarding pioneering real estate market reports. I've actually found a link via Google Books[2] to the exact page that includes that claim, so if that is sufficient I was wondering if you could consider adding that reference to the article when you have time. Thank you again so much for your time and effort. RyLaughlin (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Location map/decdeg

please restore Template:Location map/decdeg as Template:Location map/old/decdeg and Template:Location map+/width as Template:Location map+/old/width. I am still in the process of finding all the bugs in the new LUA module (and there have been quite a few, see this thread). Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

just to clarify, I don't necessarily need the history moved there, just the code so that the old version will work in test cases. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

2 more pics

I am a bit surprised by your preferences, so I have two more guys for you to consider.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whpq (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits 2

Hi Sphil. I hope your Request Edit drive is still going well. I was wondering what you thought about Request Edits like this one. It's a complete no-brainer. The company changed their name so that it no longer has a space ("Code42" vs "Code 42") and I'd like to move the article accordingly. Another editor already told me it was a good move on their Talk page. I've asked a couple other editors to actually make the edit, but I have a hard time finding editors that are both responsive and bold. It seems like a lot a trouble for a trivial clerical thing. I believe in the BrightLine, but it seems often impractical to go around begging editors to actually make a trivial edit. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I've done nothing recently, but I have an excuse. My main area of interest is women's basketball, I spend the last two weekends in Lincoln Nebraska and Nashville Tennessee attending regionals and the Final Four, which ended Tuesday. I still have some follow-up work, but it is largely winding down so I can re-focus on other Wikipedia initiatives. The request edit area is one I want to push. On your example, you know the answer. For that specific example, it is obviously absurd to require a non-COI editor to make the change, but if that is allowed, where do we draw the line. I don't say this as demonstration that it is impossible, just that it isn't trivial, and drawing lines in gray areas is not the type of task that is easily completed by a non-hierarchical organization. But just because it is hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'll work on some thoughts over the next few days.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My views have somewhat changed over time, but I have become increasingly inclined to view every situation as a unique snowflake that must be handled individually using good judgement, rather than through blanket policies. As such, many COI discussions would be better-served by discussing a general scenario, rather than COI broadly. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey do you think I could get you to take a look at my Request Edit at Talk:Purina? There are several companies that all have "Purina" in the name and I was hoping to make it more clear which is what. Candle transformed the redirect page to a disambiguation page as requested, but I also suggested some edits to Purina Mills to make it more clear what it is, in comparison to my potential COI with Nestle Purina Petcare. I have not officially been recruited to improving the Nestle Purina page, but when I was doing research I noticed it was somewhat confusing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that Candleabracadabra added a clarification that it is in the farm animal feeding business, not pet animals.

That edit did not include the phrase " which feeds farm animals on its 1,200-acre farm in Gray Summit, Missouri". However, adding that would confuse me. It seems to suggest that its products are used on one farm, which isn't the case is it? Isn't the distinction between one company specializing in pet food and another company specializing in farm animal food? Or am I confused.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh you're right! I didn't see that. Good enough for me - Ill go de-activate it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if you were going to hang around the SAS page for the other sections or if your interest was limited to the one Request Edit. I don't mean to rush or be naggy (following WP:COI has the effect of turning me into a nag). It's just since the queue isn't managed as well as AfC, I never know if it will never be answered for months, or if I just need to wait a few days or weeks for someone to get around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not being more responsive to the request edits. I feel a little like those who say they are easily distracte...oh look a butterfly...but on a serious note, I returned from some real life activities to find more than 1200 open requests for OTRS permission, and I am trying to get that massive backlog under control. (Hoping some lurkers will knock off one or two). I do want to contribute more to the request edit issue, both in specific edits, as well as grappling with the overall issue of how to get better responses.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I generally look at Request Edits in terms of days/weeks (sometimes months), rather than hours/days. This idea floating around that marketers are entitled to instant thoughtful responses from the site's best editors suggests they/we expect to have an elevated status compared to regular editors that often have as hard a time getting help or advice or that the queue is more important than the dozens of other backlogs. CorporateM (Talk) 10:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Deny science

"Let's be clear, these scientists are like creationists in that they deny science"

So, do you object to "these scientists are like creationists" or just "deny science"? Is this just about "tone" or are you saying the sources and our other articles don't support the statements?

Focusing on the latter and trying to be clearer over all, "Let's be clear, these scientists are like those offered by creationists in that they are important only for their being noted as part of the climate change denial efforts, that their opinions get heard because they can be presented as "experts" despite having little or no impact on the science ever, and none today."

As I've repeatedly pointed out, I don't think they are denialists. They are at best pawns in the climate change denial efforts though. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think both are objectionable. Creationists have a curious POV. (As an aside, I made a comment to a colleague last week, and the response startled me, leading me to think he may be a creationist. I may follow up and find out). I think I am on solid ground thinking that almost no one would take comparison to a creationist as a compliment, and almost all would find it insulting. Denying science is equally bad. They aren't just people like me who support, agree with and have enormous respect for science, they are scientists whose very life is studying and advancing science. It is possible that some of their specific positions will not stand up to future advancement in the field, but that's true of many, many scientists, including many who do buy into the IPCC conclusions.

I've read many, perhaps not all of the sources, and do not recall any support for the notion that all of the scientists on the list deny science. That is an extremely strong claim, and if you want to aver it, the burden is on you to support it. You having, you merely assert it and make non-specific references to sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ever look at Denialism?

"do not recall any support for the notion that all of the scientists on the list deny science" I didn't say the all do. Again, this isn't about them being denialists. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You referred to "these scientists" without any clarifying remarks that might suggest you were talking about some subset. If you are only talking about some, please be explicit; identify which scientists deny science and back it up with a reference, not some vague chapter which hints that someone, somewhere, might have done something.

You are a puzzlement. I've looked at some of your edits, and you have done a lot of great work trying to keep linkfarms out of WP. Your criteria is more strict than my own, which is fine, but leaves me puzzled because I cannot see how to square that desire to keep out fluff links with your desire to keep in this grossly inappropriate one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked Ever look at Denialism? My answer - yes I have, but I have to wonder if you have. I saw the literally correct statement that the term denier has been applied to "those who argue against the scientific consensus". Did you stop reading at that point? Or did you read on to see the criticism of that incorrect labeling, noting objections to "use of the word denialist to describe climate change skeptics". It appears to me that you are doing this, and I object. People who avoid discussing the science, and resort to labels are often doing so because they are unable to debate the science, or know that they will lose such a debate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using the labeling, nor do I mean to imply the labeling either. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask before you answer? You claim they "deny science" but they are not "denialists". You want to use the term "denialism" but not "denialists"? What's the difference? Please give a straight answer, or I'll just hat this. I don't mind debating terms, but if you simply refuse to be clear, I have better things to do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As you point out "denialist" is a label. Denialism is not. Being part of a denialism effort, and simply stating that they don't agree with the science (rather than participating in the science) is denialism. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Yes, "denialist" is a label. A label applied to a person. "Denialism" is also a label, one attached to an action. The action "denialism" is carried out by "denialists". I gave you a chance, but I need to move one. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're withdrawing the BLP, or don't want to try to resolve the problem here with you? --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

|}

Hi

Oh why thank you I love uconn womne's basketball team i thought it was weird that i couldn't find Stefanie Dolson so I wanted to create her a page. Thank you for the kind words. I got the information from these two pages. http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/mtt/stefanie_dolson_723334.html and http://www.usab.com/bios/dolson_stefanie.html I don't know how to add them though just fix it i tried to add a reference i don't know how to do it Lilk846 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I create references with an external template in an editor, but when you click edit you might see the word "Cite" about the edit box. (If not I'll find out how to add it(. If you do, click on it, then look to the left to see the word templates, which has four options. "Cite Web" applies in these two cases. That brings up a box you can fill in with the url, title and some other information. For the access date, click on the calendar to insert today's date. Try it, if it doesn't work, or you don't see it, I'll help. I created the reference which shows up in the section below, using these steps. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You may need to turn on " Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)"

See

Preferences → Editing--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

References

time waste

OTRS Ticket There is an open OTRS ticket (2014032210008124) that looks like it needs your specialized attention. I've been working to clear the en-permissions backlog, and its been sitting for a bit without response, so I thought I would ping you. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I've done quite a bit for that editor, and not up to it at the moment. I'll respond.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I could tell you've worked on a lot for them. It isn't anything that I can figure out, so I figured I ought to stay out of it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I do understand. For a variety of reasons, I got away from OTRS for a few months. I was staggered to return and see over 1200 open permission requests. I knocked off about a 100, but I need to take a break, partly because we are expecting 40 for the Easter weekend, some have already arrived. That said, when I see someone else is handling something, I try to stay out of it and get a little concerned when it languishes. So I appreciate the nudge. I wrote to him and said I would look into it next week.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Books & Bytes - Issue 5 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes Issue 5, March 2014 by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) New Visiting Scholar positions TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program Australian articles get a link to librarians Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia" Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC) time waste "avoid characterizing the motives of other editors" Motives? Howso? I wrote, "Since the other editors involved in this dispute don't appear interested in examining the sources, or at least responding to questions about them, let's just forget context for a moment." I believe this accurately summarizes the lack of interest in the sources and discussing them. Is there some implication about motives that can be read into the statement? If so I apologize and will rewrite it if you'll only point out the problem. --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC) This stems from your repeated, and irritating use of FOC. I'm actually a big fan of the concept, and many negative interactions would be eliminated if more editors followed the policy. That said, when a discussion is reasonably civil it isn't surprising that someone might occasionally make a comment which is not strictly about content. It happens, is usually no big deal, and most people aren't all that troubled by it. However, you use it often. Your call, but if you want a hyperactive approach to following the rules, you ought to follow them yourself. In the example I reacted to, of course you believe it, but that's not the point. Claiming that others "don't appear interested in examining the sources" is a comment about conduct not content. It is especially irritating because it is false. You cited a number of sources, and I read every single one of them. Another editor specifically mentioned reading several, That said, the fact that you were wrong about the facts is secondary, the primary point is that if you want to upbraid people whenever their comment is not strictly about content, start by following it yourself.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC) "This stems from your repeated, and irritating use of FOC." I'd very much like to have a way to turn the focus away from editors and onto content and policy that doesn't irritate anyone. Do you have any suggestions? "is a comment about conduct" Agreed. So it's not about motive then. Thanks for clarifying. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ?? --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Conduct is not motive, and I don't see anything else about motive. Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) My puzzlement is that you asked a question, and I had not answered (AFACT) when you thanked me for clarifying. No big deal, but I did not make any clarification in response to your question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I wanted to know why you accused me of characterizing motives, which could be seen as an accusation of a AGF/BATTLEGROUND/etc violation. From your responses, it appears not to be. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Treat it as a caution, not an accusation. I'll be out of town until Thursday, so if I don't respond promptly, that's why.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC) I'm ignoring it as something you shouldn't have written. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC) And that helps...how?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Editors make mistakes. I think you made one. Best to ignore it an move on. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC) I don't, but as always, you are entitled to your opinion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC) When editors cannot justify themselves, I think it best to just consider it a mistake. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Nice homily but not applicable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry you feel that way. --Ronz (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Your input is invited on this round of FDC proposals! Hello! I'm reaching out to you on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee to request your input on the four proposals that have been submitted to the FDC in this round. The FDC reviews these proposals on behalf of the Wikimedia movement, as it is movement money that they spend, and in order to review them effectively we need to understand your perspective on them, and to ensure that any questions you have about them have been appropriately answered. The proposals are linked to from meta:Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#Proposals_for_review. Please provide your feedback through the talk pages for each proposal. In particular, please take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan. As they have a projected budget of over $60 million (including the grants that they will provide to other movement entities), their plans need extra scrutiny by the community to make sure that they are spending the movement's money effectively. We will also send you a message to ask you for your input in future rounds of the FDC. If you don't want to receive such messages, then please say so below. Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Will check them out today.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)