User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 46

Move over redirect

Hi Sphilbrick. You seem to be getting the lion's share of these birdy G6s. Is there any reason why move over redirect is restricted to admins rather than being a user right that could be requested? I don't have sights set on adminship, but may well continue with the birdy stuff from time to time, and could save admins some effort if a user right were available. Is there a proper place to suggest such a thing, or would it be a waste of time? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Stfg, This may be longer than you expected, and not the answer you wanted, but here goes:

I trust you understand, but it is worth mentioning for clarity, that it isn't so much the mover over redirect that requires an admin, it is that the action requires the deletion of a page, and that is currently limited to admins (and maybe a tiny few others). I'm not a developer, but I work with enough to guess that a bespoke user right which includes the ability to delete, would not be easy to create without delivering the universal ability to delete. (I was going to go on a side topic about the distinction between deleting material and viewing already deleted material, but it would be a diversion, so I won't).

I am generally a fan of considering unbundling in some cases. but this example isn't working for me. I assume that the community has revisited the convention about capitalization, so there will be more of these coming. However, it is a medium sized slug of articles, and once done, there might not be another similar instance for some time. Move over redirects come up on occasion, but except for this instance, aren't quite common enough to justify a user right.

I do have another suggestion, which might fit in with the making_life_easier_for_admins _is_always_appreciated. I like handing these requests. When I see a few, I look carefully at one, to make sure the nominator seems to know what they are doing, and then if I see others from the same nominator, I can do them with less scrutiny. If you were to identify a time that you planned on working on a bunch of them, let me know in advance, and nominated them more or less at the same time, I could knock them off fairly quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and accurate answer. In light of it, I won't push for the creation of a user right. (I do understand the difference between deleting and viewing deleted material. Perhaps that's the reason why we ordinary mortals can move over redirects that have never been edited since creation, but not once they have been edited. Some redirect pages, after all, were once articles.)

Thanks for offering to expedite mine, but not to worry. I work slowly, because I always copy edit as well as just downcasing. I just can't help myself! In the group I'm doing at present, most articles can be moved, and when I have to G6 one I just note it in the to-do list on move on, to return later. It's an easy way to work and means I don't hit the admin corps with dozens at a time. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at some of your work, and realize my suggestion doesn't work quite as well as I thought. I see that you work through some of the articles, some of which can be moved without an admin. I was hoping you identify a slug all at once requiring an admin. That may not be the case. BTW, nice work. I don't qualify as a birder, but I have friends that are, and some of my most rewarding OTRS work has been handling permission for bird photos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So far, I think only around a quarter of the articles I've looked at have redirects that can't be moved over. Most of those that can't are because someone edited them to add a redirect to other caps tag. Hey ho! :-) --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Was Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NASROLLAH MOGHTADER MOJDEHI deleted as a standard G13 or for some other reason? I ask because someone is requesting it be restored at WP:REFUND and you didn't leave a deletion reason. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy, standard G13, hadn't been edited in over a year. It had been declined due to sources and tone, but if someone wants to work on it, I'd say go ahead and restore. Sorry about lack of deletion reason, it is usually automatic, and I must have missed that this one didn't appear. (I now see it had a yellow bar, not green, which may explain the lack of reason.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Evolva Wikipedia Page

Hi, I am reaching out to you and Widefox in regards to the recently deleted Wikipedia page Evolva Holding. Would you have a moment to give input on a collection of secondary third-party verifiable sources for the intent of re-qualifying Evolva for a stub-class Wikipedia article? My disclosure of potential conflict of interest (not an employee of Evolva) is intended to foster goodwill in my collaboration with you. OK with reviewing the secondary source links and/or sandbox? Look forward to your favorable response. Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm in over my head at the moment, I'll try early next week.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten to this yet, not sure when I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Please let me know when you are able to. Thank you. Presto808 (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Bodlondeb Woods

I'm surprised that you deleted Bodlondeb Woods; did you not search Wikipedia for references or links such as List of local nature reserves in Wales? You will see at the bottom of this page that the woods are registered and kept by Countryside Council for Wales, a non-profit government body, now known as Natural Resource Wales. The (new user) also included as references a link to ([http://www.conwy.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=501&doc=1759&Language=1 the local council's website). Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 No, I did not. Three sentences about a small wooded area with zero indication of why it might be notable. If not expanded, I think it should be deleted. I hope you will improve it, so it survives.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

To some people starting out on Wikipedia three sentences is a lot! They are very proud of having published something which is in their eyes a good piece of work. The "indication" of its notability was in the article: the fact that it is registered as a 'local nature reserve'. Please be positive with new editors and show them that Wikipedia nourishes and celebrates their contributions, however small. Many thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but registered as a 'local nature reserve' doesn't sound very notable. I happen to be on the board of a local land conservatory, which means I am probalby more symathetic to inlcusion than the average editor. We have 67 properties, most of which are larger than Bodlondeb Woods, and are registered. I can't imagine that we would add a Wikipedia entry about each of the 67 properties. Maybe the entire conservatory would qualify, but it would be a close call. If you were to add the link, it would help, but despite the fact that I lean to the inclusionist side of the spectrum, I don't think it belongs as is.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

kaurareg

Hi, sorry about this, I see it's at Kaurareg people (temp), I'd been copy-pasting the rationale on similar db-moves and missed changing the name on that one :-O. Haste makes waste, didn't realize that had happened.Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling,Skookum1 :) Please let me know where is should be. Kaurareg people? --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops looks like my guess is backwards - I guess it should be to Kaurareg?

Ping Skookum1--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping Skookum1 again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There was also some controversy about your redirects, has that been resolved? Can you point me to it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I seen this just now. I've moved it to Kaurareg as per your original move. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I guessed, but wanted to be sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the issue has not been resolved, and several editors at ANI have requested that Skookum stop making move requests. One of the problems you'll note is that Skookum thinks TWODABS means that we shouldn't have dab pages with only two links, though several admins have explained to him that it doesn't mean that at all. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll stop processing them, although we ought to do something about those in progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I started removing the tags, per the instructions in the tags, but Skookum started to edit war over them. I meant to warn him and then revert him, but I posted the warning on the wrong page, so when he reverted me again, I asked him to revert himself. Based on his history, I suspect there's no way he's going to do that (I was evidently right: [1]), and bringing him to ANI over it is going to be a waste of a lot of people's time, so would you mind removing the tags? — kwami (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	The Barnstar of Diligence is awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. To Sphilbrick, for his diligence and tirelessness as an arbitration clerk. Thank you for your work yesterday, on the clerks' mailing list, and for all your other effort in the role. AGK [•] 11:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot. I confess, I was half worried that you asked a question which was structured as a yes/no question, and I didn't answer it that way, so I'm happy to hear that it was well-received. I suppose it's par for the course when you sign up for the Arb Committee that nothing has a simple answer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

see what I mean?

Not only is he reverting to a TWODAB, he's also now using a different apostrophe for no reason at all; perhaps to avoid a 3RR methinks...he accuses me of an edit war he's starting...... yes, there's a controversy but it's not about the policies and guidelines that should be being enforced, it's about that one editor who continues to conduct a campaign of illogic and games with titles and seems to relish the confrontation and threatens me with ANIs he should be the subject of. I'm preparing a (very large) AE on his activities, which I've outlined for you on my page; he's used the special-apostrophe namegame before in titles like Nisga'a to get around reverts and redirects; while never working on the actual articles. He cited "per TWODABS" in the course of reverting to a TWODABS page, even though TWODABS says explicitly two-item disambiguation pages should be replaced by a hatnote. Controversy? No, idiocy mixed with profound arrogance and arrogation; I tire of this stupid game and will go back to building and improving articles as is my usual wont; that all this began because I was confronted with undiscussed name-changes on titles/links I use all the time was compounded by the "FOO people" problem re "the Squamish affair"...which I will also be sending to ARBCOM, as it's clear to me now that the character assassination milieu of ANI is not the place for discussions of content, policy and reality.Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No need to comment on the willful misreading of TWODABS, but a note on the apostrophe: That is evidently how WP represents the apostrophe in the article name, since all I did was substitute PAGENAME. But of course it must be part of some nefarious plan ... — kwami (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the nice things about being a volunteer is that you get to decide what you want to work on. On occasion, I try to look into disputes to see if I can understand the root cause, and offer some constructive input. However, I'm choosing not to get involved in this dispute at this time. My narrow point is that G6 is for uncontroversial moves, so if there is controversy, even if unwarranted, it needs to be resolved first, if you wish to use G6.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo Question

Hi, I was wondering if I could ask your help with something? I had gotten a picture submitted and authorized for use a while ago (October 2012) and just recently the photo was deleted for a copyright violation. I can't find out what the violation was and when I emailed the user who deleted they asked me to email permissions to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS but I think this was already done when I submitted the authorization originally but I send the permissions to permissions-en@wikimedia.org not commons. Someone moved the photo to commons after the permissions were sent so I'm not sure how the permissions transfer.

The photo was "File:Mohit_Malhotra.jpg" and the ticket was Ticket#2012101110001641. Any help or input you could provide would be great. I can get another picture submitted but I don't want it to get deleted again since I don't know what the issue was. I'm wondering if this was a transfer to commons issue. (Raasta123 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

Looking into it now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Watch this space --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Raasta123, it is now resolved, the deleting admin has restored. Sorry about that, but all fixed now.(Not that you care, but there was an exceedingly tiny technical issue which I explained in a note in the OTRS file, but the deleting admin is not an OTRS agent, so did not see it.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! That was fast :-) I figured it was something small but I didn't know how to get it resolved. You rock! (Raasta123 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC))

T3

• Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation/meta/color
• Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation)/meta/color

please fix the transclusions to these templates, or restore them, since you deleted them. 107.4.39.136 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)I restored them, but they are redundant, so someone should replace them with the improved version. Can you do that, so they can be deleted?

I restored them, but they are redundant, so someone should replace them with the improved version. Can you do that, so they can be deleted?--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

given that the article name is Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation, I would suggest moving Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation/meta/color to Template:Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Liberation/meta/color, and keeping the non-endash version as a redirect. 2601:0:200:62A:20E:C6FF:FE88:F031 (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Userfy request

Hello Sphilbrick, could you please userfy Thailand national under–14 football team to my User space as I would like to check something before requesting a U1. Thanks a lot. JMHamo (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

JMHamo  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

I now have us caught up from December 2013 up to February 2014, which still means we have many Request Edits that are three months old (down from 6). I declined almost all of them, so any hour now, some of them will come to my Talk page huffing and puffing. I did about 20 of them in 1 hour and 40 minutes (5 minutes each). I don't think they are unreasonably time-consuming. At least not if you are willing to do a mediocre job, and we should all embrace mediocrity as better than nothing or better than crap.

One article I need to circle back to is Asia World. All the cites for the controversy in the Business Practices section are broken links and I need to get my hands on them somehow. CorporateM (Talk) 19:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, thanks for doing all that. I know what you are talking about re getting some pings from people. Sometimes, I decide to reduce the backlog at OTRS, and knock of a few dozen requests. I feel good about the backlog reduction, but that inevitably means I will get some responses over the next few days, when I may or may not be in a mood to tackle them.

I have a couple thoughts on how to start improving our responses in this area. One I may have hinted about before. I notice that if you handle a request, it is not trivial for anyone else to see who is handling the requests. A handled request usually has a template, which shows up in a category, but those are not organized in any useful way (AFAICT). I prefer the model at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where you can see who addresses an issue, how it was addressed, and get a sense of who the regulars are. I can go into more detail, but I'd like some feedback from you to see what you think. If nothing else, it would make it easier to identify whether there are regulars, and then who to contact on additional ideas.

My second idea is to cage {{Admin dashboard}} so that the Requested edits field turns red when the backlog is too high. I'd start by setting the bar at 75, to give us an attainable goal, then drop it to 50 at some later time. I know this little trick works on me; when I see the red bar for CSD G10 (which goes off when the count exceeds zero) or the CSD backlog, which turns red at 100 items, I try to turn my attention to it. It's a small thing, but I suspect some don't check it at all, and the red bar might help. Doesn't seem like it could hurt.

Longer term, I'd like to look into organizing a backlog drive, but at the moment, I wouldn't know who to canvass (other than you).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those all sound like good ideas. The general principle being that there is a need for more management tools. We still don't get a lot of request edits, at least not in comparison to AfC or new page patrol, but I think we want more so that we can prevent/reduce poor COI edits that may be done un-intentionally. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I would like to know who else is working on the Request Edit queue as well, so I can figure out who to ping for my own Request Edits. It's really hard to find editors that won't just make comments, but will actually make edits. CorporateM (Talk) 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

First the good news.

I looked at some of the completed requests, those whose article name started with "A", and identified the following respondents:

partial list
Ukexpat Gigs Stalwart111 Silver seren FeralOink CorporateM RudolfRed Vacation9 Sam Sailor 78.105.236.140 Old Moonraker Bzuk Deor Diannaa Qwyrxian Celuici Sphilbrick Bobrayner Wilipino

There are more than I would have guessed. I note that only a couple are admins. As I think I have made clear, I do not view this task as an admin only task (although I prefer than new editors get more experience first). I mention this because of my suggestion to modify the admin toolbar. If the bulk of those working on these requests are not admins, that modification won't get at the audience. On the other hand, maybe it will bring in more admins.

On a negative note, one of the contributors has under 30 edits, and by byte count, over 99% of the edits are responses to edit requests. I did not look at the edit, but it raises a red flag for me.

I've reached out to Moonriddengirl to see who designed the Copyright Problems page, as a first step to considering it as a model. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@ CorporateM Following up here, so as not to bore MRG - I have more familiarity with CP, so that was my first thought as a model. That looks like a dead end, so perhaps AFC is a better model. Before I take the next step, I want to think about what I want to accomplish, as there are multiple goals.

Hey why don't we work on something right now and see how far we can get until we need a technical expert. CorporateM (Talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, isn't this actually a good starting point already? Or were you looking for something different entirely CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We need to change the graphic, which is the AFC logo, but that's a great start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've started contributing to the Talk page--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey do you do you have any interest in taking over the Request Edit Wizard? Like moving into your userspace and seeing it forward? Given the COI stuff, I would consider it a good thing if I wasn't involved. CorporateM (Talk) 05:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That may make sense, but I'm somewhat over-committed at the moment, let's come back to this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"apparently the controversy has not yet been resolved"

closing without reading, sorry

Indeed so, but it's a one-man controversy, and his habit of creating TWODAB pages to replace PRIMARYTOPIC redirects is an old part of his game; and he's even claimed that TWODAB mandates TWODAB pages instead of the explicit opposite. The only controversy is the one he keeps going by such actions; which are always against guidelines and other naming policies than his own pet theory. My contention is that redirects to primary topic are inherently deletable and reversion to the original, undisambiguated title is not controversial at all. Only one very obstinate editor who created 95% of these, and it seems several hundred TWO pages, including the one he just made now, very controversially and as-always shamelessly, is what is "controversial". TITLE/CONCISENESS/PRECISION, PRIMARYTOPIC and NCDAB are not "controversial". As an example of his refusal to acknowledge or even investigate reality, the view stats for "Bilibil people" were 117 this month, for "Bilibil language" there were only 41. In the last 90 days, there were 481 for "Bilibil people" and there were only 134 for "Bilibil language". He's argued until he's blue in the face that "language and people are equally primary topic" in his ongoing insistence that "people" articles must be disambiguated, but has yet to show any evidence for that, or cite where that claim comes from. I'm not going to take the time to review all the incoming links, but established patterns with this "problem" overwhelmingly show that the people articles are what most incoming links are about; with maybe government and communities ahead of language in dab-choice options, when they exist. Note the lack of "fix" to the lede, which is still Bil bil in the wake of his move from "Bil Bil language", which is typical; the further question goes "are the people named "Bilibil" and the language named "Bil Bil"?" Perhaps, not my area, but I'm way too familiar with his name games e.g. re Parnkalla where the language and people titles had separate spellings and, I'm guessing, separate pronunciations, which came up in dispute with @JHunterJ: on the talkpage debate at WP:NCL. Controversy? Well, policy and mainstream guidelines should not be controversial, nor should actions applying them be considered so nor should RMs be needed to deal with redirects-to-target and TWODAB pages; guidelines and policies about that have been discussed and well-established for a long time; how many TWODAB RMs will be necessary to fix all his creations? I've already learned that bulk RMs, even all of the same kind and on the same issue/guideline/policy are unwelcome and will be shut down, and individual RMs were indicated as the way to deal with things. For doing that I have been accused and vilified for a "frenzy" of moves.....but nobody said "boo" about his massive "frenzy" of moves and TWODAB-makings.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) The incoming links template added to Kavango and others today are because of the TWO/three dab pages having been created; the vast bulk of those links will be to the "people" article, if precedent applies here as it has so obviously in scores of similar cases.Skookum1 (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I have not examined your arguments in any detail. You may be right, you may be wring, it may not even be a case of right or wrong but how a community chooses a convention. What I am sure of is that I have a bad habit of over-committing. I have a number of things I am working on, and a number of things I want to work on. I try to spend some time each day on CSD, but when I see a CSD G6, which is supposed to be uncontroversial, I am happy because it is an easy one to handle. When I find it is not uncontroversial, well, it would be nice if I could take the time to sort through the issue and resolve the controversy, but only at the cost of dropping something else. That would be unfair to other areas where I have made a commitment. You seem to be trying to explain to me why your position is correct. My repose isn't that you are wrong, but that I am not listening. There must be a venue to resolve it, but I am quite sure it is not my talk page. Sorry, I feel bad for writing this, as I like to try to be helpful whenever I can, but I am not planning to spend any more time on this issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I see, as too many editors do, you did not bother reading the background to the so-called "controversy". Whatever, the titles you removed the db-move template from were converted immediately into TWODAB pages, upon which I add {{only-two-dabs}} so that they could be reviewed for primary topic and possible expansion past two dabs. He tried removing all of those, I reinstated them, so he added {{two-dabs}} which states that there is no primary topic; upon my removal of those, he re-removed {tl|only-two-dabs}}, claiming *I* have to disprove what he has yet to prove - that languages are parallel primary topics to the people who speak them and who the language is named for/by. A combination of OCD and inanity and perverse hypocrisy, threatening me with an ANI if I continue to revert his edit-war edits..... ranting about guidelines while having a history of ignoring and overriding major ones. I feel like Sisyphus.... if people so concerned about guidelines then reference to TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC should be made; and TWODABS pages should be dealt with accordingly....there's simply too many out there he's created to address all of them with the necessary templates; and he'll remove them anyway. I'm bored of the b.s. If people like you didn't call something in line with TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC "controversial" then those db-moves would have gone through, and he wouldn't be able to waste yet more time and energy playing his games with two dabs and template-warring. For Kwami alone I may say f**k it to Wikipedia.....which really is what he wants, so there's nobody around to call him on his b******t.Skookum1 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see, as too many editors do, you did not bother reading the background. You are correct, as I explained. This is the wrong forum.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	That speedy deletion of those harassment talk pages was really fast- good job! Lixxx235 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. (I just explained to someone else that when I saw the red bar on the admin dashboard, I tried to respond quickly. I was actually busy doing something else, but I saw the red bar, remembered my claim so had to act:)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that ;) Lixxx235 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite all right. Thank-you for the diligence in finding and reporting that nonsense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit

Throwing out an idea - there are a number of un-conference sessions and empty time-slots and setting up a working session or workshop for improving the Request Edit process would be neat. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sunday open space discussions 18:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One challenge is that I committed to doing something about OTRS with Keegan; I don't know when or how long, but let's see if we can do something. Pinging Geraldshields11 --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		As one of the editors who helped answer my question(s) at the Teahouse concerning my mistaken csd/afd two step with regards to the article Norman Alvis I hereby present you with this Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for the help, I can see now both why and how I screwed this matter up so badly, which will hopefully translate into fewer mistakes of this nature down the road. With my sincere thanks, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mosaic

I uploaded a new version of File:Big statue of liberty frontal 2q.jpg that has at least 3 of the little images you were looking for. Maybe more. They're generally towards the bottom with turquoise frames. Let me know if you can't spot them, and I'll send you columns and rows. Faolin42 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the Stefanie Dolson image, which is the main one I cared about. I'll look for the others. Great to see you again at the Conference, and nice work on the images.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtfulness

Thanks for checking in about image-tagging - I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. For now, I'd prefer not to add any user or full name labels that aren't already there. --Levendowski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for responding.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2014

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2014_WikiConference_USA_(Group_L)_25.JPG is the better group conference photo Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Geraldshields11 Thanks, I've replaced it. And thanks for all the work you did on photos, and thanks in advance for your interest in Request Edit; I'm on pause for a couple days, but will get back to you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When I say better, I meant that in the total circumstances. You did not have to replace the photo that you like better. I am easy going. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I checked to see if I could find myself. If I couldn't, it wouldn't be better for my page :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ping/Notification

I do not have hoops talk page on my watchlist so I was notified by the new notification system that you had mentioned me somewhere. I usually go to peoples talk pages specifically and directly. This makes things clear who is talking to who and why. I am sure your cause for conern as to hoops editing and its ramifications is in the right place. I happened to be of a different opinion. Please read the ANI for others comments rather than mine. I do not have anywhere near the capacity of understanding the ramificatiions of the category removal as those who asked him to 'cease and desist'. satusuro 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely an editor with your experience is familiar with Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. While only an essay, it is my experience that it is often good advice. I am not on top of the category issues, so I do not know who is right or wrong on that issue. My narrow point is that it is considered rude to send a template, urging an editor with over 50,000 edits, to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. (Did you not see my response? I placed it following your comments, rather than break up the discussion onto a different page.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)