User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 50

Administrator Orlady again

Time to close this for now. Some progress made, although maybe that's my optimism fooling me.

She conducted a personal attack here[1] Pay attention to the words 'is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors'. I templated[2] her for it, As you full well know its not the first time I've done that in recent days, and awarded the editor was the target of the Orlady's violation of WP:CIVIL with a barnstar[3]. Now she is accusing me[4] of using barnstars as part of a vendetta. Can't help to point out how that last link also fails WP:AGF....William 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I promise to look into this, but I cannot right away. I'm at work, have a meeting coming up, plus I promised someone to write an article. I will get to it, though.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC) No problem, SP. Get to it only when you have time....William 15:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I think there's less here than meets the eye. Let me start by noting that I am not a DYK regular, I have a few, but I'm not an expert. My understanding is that DYKs are proposed and reviewed in one area, and after review and acceptance, move into one of the prep areas. If the original vetting was adequate, there should be no need for further editing at the prep step. However, there have been complaints that the whole DYK process is has been too casual, so I am not unhappy at all to see some edits occurring at this stage. In some cases, it looks like a further stage of peer review that deserves kudos. However, while it might be appropriate at this stage to correct some that was missed (c.f. Dylan Penn edits), I don't think this is the right time or place to be fundamentally rewriting the hook. I accept that airgonate is a cool word, and it might be a useful service to readers to introduce the term, but the proper place to do that is in the article, before the DYK is finalized. If the word can be incorporated into the article without too much straining, then it might be part of a decent hook. However, changing the hook at that stage was , in my opinion, a poor idea. We wouldn't be here if the word had been simply added and removed. It was added more than once, and veered into edit war territory, on a final prep page. That is, in deed juvenile behavior, and I think Orlady's comment was restrained, given the situation. Note that she took care not to even accuse EEng of being immature, but suggested that the edit was something one might expect from a less mature individual. If you read carefully, you will see that Orlady is not calling EEng immature, just the opposite, she was implying that it was out of character. I'm just curious—how did you get involved? I occasionally jump into a conversation if I think someone is getting unfairly badgered, but I didn't get the sense that EEng need help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC) SP, I don't do any DYK work. So I have nothing to say on that dispute. What brought me in was my usual patrolling on what certain administrators do around here and as you once said on my talk page, you don't want me to stop doing. As to the mature comments, EEG doesn't seem to take them in a light vein. Check this[5]- 'since she's ludicrously determined to draw attention to her own silliness and fuss over the utterly trivial' and EEng's edit summaries for that thread. You've made no comment so far on Orlady's barnstar reaction....William 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for explaining how you came to see it. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I was genuinely wondering whether you found it as a DYK regular, or something else. I stand by my comments that I support you paying attention to admins. Thanks for the links to EEnG reactions, I'll look closer. Re barnstar, I mulled over how to respond, but got called away (as you might see I'm trying to write an article Mike Neighbors). I'll follow up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC) A little prehistory may be in order here. The interaction with EEng is related to his recent involvement with DYK, where he cast aspersions on the competence and good judgment of pretty much everyone who was ever previously involved with the project. He represented himself as particularly well qualified not only to point out our faults but also to second-guess our actions. He has lightened up quite a bit and other DYKers have gotten more accustomed to his personal style, which often seems to include making sarcastic comments on talk pages and in edit summaries. A couple of examples of my interactions with him at DYK are in Template:Did you know nominations/Heber Hart, the exchange at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 108#Hook removed from main page, and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 108#Bergman. Aside: The recent climate at DYK, particularly as affected by EEng and The Rambling Man, is making DYK an unsatisfying area to work in. And after EEng has criticized pretty much everyone else for what he perceives to be poor quality control, that stunt of inserting an obscure word in a hook is very hard to accept. As for WilliamJE, some time ago he declared that he intended to watch me and lead the charge for you at ANI and Arbcom till you resign or someone at wikipedia shows some guts around here to take away your absolute power to do harm to someone for absolute bullshit!. When he shows up out of the blue to criticize me (for something I did, as in this case, or for someone else's edit that he mistakenly attributed to me, as happened a couple of months back), I have to assume he's following through on that declaration. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I composed this about 5 hrs ago but was called away before posting. I stand by everything I say in Orlady's diffs -- in fact, one of them is in my own post below -- and leave it to my esteemed fellow editors to draw their own conclusions from them.] Hope you don't mind my butting in -- I went poking around after receiving one of WJE's barnstars. Somehow you've morphed me from EEng to EEG, but, hey, what's in a name? I'm not upset or worried by anything Orlady does with regard to me. A few months ago a spontaneous movement broke out to bring some serious quality control to DYK -- there were just too many silly, illiterate, and just plain wrong DYK items making it to the main page. I happened to be walking by at the moment, got drawn in, and I've been hanging around ever since. Unfortunately, a few editors' feathers are ruffled over this -- some of them had enjoyed racking up large numbers of submissions with little scrutiny. This [6] pretty much tells the story, and while you may think the reference to Dunning-Kruger harsh, a review of our prior interactions (at that nom and elswhere) will explain my frustration. Since then she seems to have an intellectual chip on her shoulder -- keeps trying to one-up me somehow, and while self-indicting efforts like that are tiresome they don't trouble me, though I do appreciate WJE's solicitousness. As to airgonation, it is indeed a fun word, and while opinions vary on what makes a good hook, at least some of us think that an unusual and intriguing word can help. It's very common practice to tinker with hooks at they go to prep and while in prep -- the DYK rules explicitly recognize this and nominators are expected to keep their eyes open. In this case, I knew I was going out on a limb but there are many eyes on the preps and I fully expected a discussion to ensue which either would or wouldn't end with the change staying. What I didn't expect was Orlady to portray my suggestion as a some kind of presumptuous intrusion. Like the diff I supplied earlier in this post, her statement at Talk:DYK, "It seems that User:EEng found it in a dictionary and thought it would be cute to add it to the hook in prep", tells the story pretty well -- she doesn't seem to realize that not everyone has to look in a dictionary for unusual and enlivening words, for example, and I think most people at DYK would be startled at the notion that a "cute" (whatever that means) hook is a bad thing. That airgonation cute-ifies the hook was not a justification for removing it, so I thought I'd put it back to attract further attention. I won't go into further details but even the person who subsequently removed it again, later later told me he'd thought better of that. But I didn't want to kick poor Orlady when she was already down. Anyway, thanks for the concern. EEng (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I guess I will respond to one of Orlady's misrepresentations in her post above. I did not portray myself "as particularly well qualified not only to point out our faults but also to second-guess our actions" -- what I said is this: it's obvious that there are just a handful of people who are willing and able to act as a final barrier keeping nonsense off the main page, however well-intentioned QPQ reviewers may be Putting aside poor Orlady's conflation of pointing out faults in hooks with pointing out faults in editors, that's quite a different statement, especially when you consider the willing part. At the time I wrote that, up to five hooks per day were being pulled off the preps, Qs, or even the main page for sourcing or accuracy problems. The proof that those pulls were justified, at least in the case of those I did, is that with one or two exceptions none of the pulled hooks made it to the main page without either substantive revision to the hook itself or a new source supplied to the linked article. And those pulls were carried out by a very small number of people, of whom I was one. Whether other people could do this, I don't know, but they certainly weren't doing it. So Orlady can fuss all she wants, but the proof is in the pulling. Almost nothing is pulled now, which suggests that attitudes toward accuracy and sourcing have indeed improved. If that makes DYK a less satisfying place for her to work, so be it. Since you mentioned me I thought I'd let you know my take on things, but otherwise as far as I'm concerned Orlady's actions speak for themselves and there's nothing more to discuss. You two go ahead and if you need me for something ping me. EEng (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) SP, I just got my latest ebook back from my editor with lots of revisions she suggested I do. Tomorrow I'll read what you and EEng wrote and make a reply....William 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC) I fixed the spelling (sorry), and read your response. It deserves more than a quick reaction, and as I have to go out of town, with limited internet access for at least a day, maybe two, my lack of response now should not be equated to lack of interest, but the opposite. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) FTR, here's a recent example of the interaction style of one of the other users: diff --Orlady (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Why you refer to me cryptically as "one of the other users" I have no idea, but FTR I stand by what I said there. You habitually "respond" to things I haven't said, and I honestly don't know whether you do this on purpose, don't bother to understand, or genuinely can't understand. EEng (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) @Orlady, WilliamJE, and EEng:It is not uncommon that learning more about the back story completely changes one's view of an interaction. However, in this case, while the back story helped explain some of the actions, it did not change my initial reactions. I've known about complaints (re lack of adequate vetting) at DYK for years. It sounds like EEng was responding to those concerns. Many of the suggestions and changes seem warranted, so EEng deserves plaudits for stepping in and helping. I do have some concerns, as already expressed, about the types of changes proposed in final prep as opposed to earlier stages in the process. Final prep is the last chance to catch outright errors, and catching them at the last minute is better than not catching them. Similar thoughts re word tweaks, which improve clarity, but do not materially change the hook. However, while the use of an obscure word may well prove to be a good hook, the word should already be in the article, and the discussion should be deleted with at an earlier point in the process, not in final prep. Even such a late proposal would merely be an annoyance, but the real problem was the attempt to re-insert it after it was properly removed. If I were working there at the time, and saw the edit summary hee hee, sounds like a war crime, I'd also wonder about the maturity level (even if a temporary lapse) of the editor. Orlady's response, while strong, was measured, and did not constitute a personal attack. Then William steps in, seeing what appears to be a personal attack, and tries to help. William surely you know about Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I use templates regularly, and find them very useful, but using a template in a situation like this is often viewed as insulting. For a newish editor, who might not yet know the community mores, it might be appropriate. For someone like Orlady, not because she is an admin, but because she is experienced, certainly knows the general concepts embodied in the template. It is conceivable that even an experienced person might say something that is perceived as a pa even if not intended. I'm sure I'm guilty of that, but the proper response is an explanation of the specific situation, not a standard template. I can't read her state of mind, but if she was miffed over the edit war, this didn't help. Then you gave EEng a barnstar. However, it was not the usual use of a barnstar, to thank someone for doing especially good work, it was really a slap at Orlady. You may have intended it for EEng, but that isn't how it was perceived. I think Orlady was quite measured to simply point out that the developers of Wikilove would be chagrined to find their creation used to take a shot at someone (even if that is not what you intended). William I hope you saw that I supported you in the last incident you brought to me—however, while I think your heart is in the right place trying to defend what you thought was an unfair reaction to EEng and to you, I'm not with you this time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I think you have it just about right. I would only point out that in introducing the word airgonated my edit summary was [7] i hope i will be pardoned for introducing the term airgonate -- great word -- see http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/270413 where the link is to the definition of the word. A few minutes later I changed "airgonated during battle" to "engaged in airgonation during battle", and that's when I used to edit summary hee hee, sounds like a war crime -- nothing to do with re-adding the word after anyone removed it. Much later Orlady removed airgonated, saying removed User:EEng's introduction of a word that isn't in most dictionaries, isn't used in the target article, and wasn't discussed in the DYK nom and it was then that I re-added it, saying hooks frequently use words not in all dictionaries, not in the target article and/or not discussed in the nom -- if you have a substantive reason for not using a fun word that might (or might not) be judged to attract clicks, please offer that -- explaining further at Talk DYK. I hope it's clear that I went to effort to draw attention to the new word, hoping that others would comment. What I wasn't hoping was that Orlady would remove it outright just because she sees expanding one's vocabulary as a burden rather than a delight. (By the way, it's untrue that words in the hook must be in the article -- certainly if the article said someone went up in a balloon, no one would object to the hook reciting that he ascended. airgonated is admittedly more exotic, which is why I thoughtfully supplied my fellow editors with a link to its definition, as an aid to their consideration.) EEng (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I accept that a word used in a hook doesn't have to be in the article, and the example you gave is a good one. However, no one is going to read a hook with the word "ascended" and say to themselves, I wonder what that word means, I think I'll read the article. It is plausible someone might see the word "airgonate", wonder what it means, and click on the link to find out, only to be unrewarded. The word isn't in the article, so one has to do some heroic inference to figure it out. That may not be a DYK rule, but I suggest it should be. However, while I am fascinated by the minutiae of that exchange, I haven't argued that "airgonate" in a hook constitutes a bad hook, the issue is the edit warring at the last minute. Suppose you were in charge of best practices for DYK. Can you possibility imagine the following rule: One element of a good hook is a relatively rare word that may encourage a reader to want to click on the hook to find out more about the word usage. In fact, this is such a good idea that one should consider adding such a hook at the last minute, over the objections of others, and to do so even when the meaning of the word isn't explained in he article, thereby defeating he point, as long as you think it is a cool enough word to justify last minute edit warring. Should anyone object, feel free to ignore the usual community standards for collegial writing and take pot shots at anyone who disagrees. Over the top? Perhaps a bit but not much. If a little over the top it is a reaction to your recent response to Orlady, which are skirting the edges of personal attacks. Please dial it back. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Your comments are well-taken. Bear in mind -- not to start of round of "Daddy, she started it!" -- that in my first real interaction with Orlady (Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Heber_Hart) it wasn't long before I was on the receiving end of stuff like I will bluntly state that EEng's recent actions (of which this is just one) indicate a campaign of harassment against DYK -- possibly aimed at killing DYK by driving away self-respecting competent DYK volunteers. Talk about AGF! Anyway, thanks for the food for thought. EEng (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm aware of the dangers of who started it first. I once decided I couldn't properly understand issues in the Middle East untill I figure out who started it. This was years ago, so I can recall the exact issue that brought me to my knees, but I got as far back as some incident around the year 800, and saw people saying they would never forgive that affront, and decided it was hopeless (yes, I am aware I wasn't close to the beginning). I have no intention of figuring out which of you two started it first,even though I am certain it is more recent than the Middle East issues, but I hope both of you will realize that you have a common goal, making this a better encyclopedia, and try to do better. I know this is easier said than done, but it is worth trying. On that note, I think I will close this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, in the Middle East as in the Balkans, who you think the villain is depends on when you started watching the movie. EEng (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Reply to SP I've been (and still are) busy with an ebook I'll soon be publishing. (At the moment I have five for sale at Amazon) So I haven't had the chance to reply till now. A few things EEng didn't just get a barnstar from me over this but another editor also. It happens to be right above mine. SP, you point out 'Don't template the regulars. As you and I both know that isn't WP policy. Secondly, there is also Template the regulars. In fact my User page advocates the later. Noone should be above templating. If you're advocating Don't, then why didn't you advocate this when Nyttend templated me last January as part of the Orlady's spiteful wrong block of me brouhaha. In that case, it was clear to you I was criticizing, not attacking, an admin for his actions. Thirdly, EEng isn't the first editor I've wikiloved or gone to bat for who I thought was being wrongly treated. I barnstared The Banner a few weeks ago because of his courage to fight a seeming tidal wave of I believe wrong editors. I wikiloved another editor who got sniped at over at ANI about 6 months ago. There might be a couple of similar actions by me, I'd have to look through my edit history. Last November if I hadn't stood up to an administrator and virtually forced him to take a block of his to ANI for review, that editor would have remained blocked even though 2 administrators (TParis was one, the other I forget) thought the blocking admin was wrong but wouldn't perform an unblock. I came to you a ways back to get another editor unblocked when I thought it was wrong and you did do the unblock. I criticized an admin over the length of a block which was wrongly based on how many times the editor had been blocked in the past. The admin wrote 8 when the total was like 4, and one of those was a block done in error and reversed like two minutes later. I didn't push the matter only because the block was almost over. That administrator is on my watchlist however. With the exception of the editor you unblocked, I showed support of these editors on their talk pages, but I did offer that other editor help in the future with his editing issues. There might be one or two more cases. I can get you differentials if you want. I've barnstared other times. Get some smelling salts out for Orlady, Barnstared 2 or 3 admins, gave kittens to TRM not too long after he and I were squabbling and had it out on this talk page, and maybe a couple of other instances one of which may have been you. Orlady leveled a personal attack at an editor and I barnstared the target at the same time making it known what it was for....William 22:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) WJE - In many ways I feel as you do about Orlady, and maybe some correction would be in order -- I really don't know. The problem with your continuing to pursue this here and now is that you're using her silliness toward me as your vehicle for discussing her, but I'm not suffering as a result -- as you can see I'm more than capable of dealing with Orlady myself. So you're kind of making points about "the principle of the matter", as it were, when there's not really anything to be remedied -- if she'd blocked me or something it might be different, but at this point I think you should drop it. EEng (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally pointless, but...

This is my new favorite non-conflicting edit conflict. I'm trying to see if mediawiki reveals millisecond edit timing to see how close we came to conflicting. :) Protonk (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: The funny thing is...I got an edit conflict when I went to correct a spelling error. I was contemplating writing a highly indignant post somewhere about getting an edit conflict with oneself. I didn't consider for one second that it might be an actual edit conflict. Glad I didn't write it. Yeah, let's ask Media Wiki to change their reporting - this rounding off to whole seconds is very unprofessional.:)

As an aside, after reading that prose, I became concerned when I saw the editor had over a hundred edits, and decided, for the sake of the encyclopedia, that I need to check any edits to article space. Luckily none.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Their talk page is/was pretty bizarre. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I know we have a policy against pre-emptive blocks, and I support it, but if I were looking for an argument to change that policy, this would be it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit landed 9 seconds before mine. Although nobody knows the real timing difference. :) Protonk (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The actual edit was nine seconds different. That's partly because I don't know how to do the edit conflict thing, so when I get one, I back out and try again. Plus, if I did know how to do the edit conflict thing, I don't know whether then completed edit would have the original time or the final time. That's without getting into the challenges of time ordering events. I didn't fully read the attachments, but I am aware that time ordering is not easy when considering events at two locations. Doesn't that problem go away if the event occurs at the same locations? Which condition seems like it applies to two editors trying to edit the same thread. (Unless we happen to be accessing two different servers? I'm not sure how that works.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Verification, creds, links

I have several books including two anthologies I edited, won two NJ State Arts Council Fellowships, one in prose and one in poetry, won the Kinereath Genseler Award for my book Panic (also a BOTYA finalist) with Alice James Books, and there are a ton of links to my work on line. A quick search pulls these up. If they need to be linked on the page, then that would be great, but calling the page into question is inappropriate as my creds are in line with many other poets' pages:

some Books and anthologies I have written or edited:

Collapsed list

[rigger death and hoist another [room and the world [panic [speech-acts [sense of regard Reviews or comments on my work: [[8] [[9] [[10] [[11] [[12] Interviews of me or by me: [[13] [[14] [[15] [[16] [[17] [[18] Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers: [[19] [[20] [[21] [[22] [[23] Examples of poems online: [[24] [[25] [[26] [[27] [[28] [[29] [[30] [[31] [[32] [[33] [[34] [[35] [[36] [[37] [[38] [[39] [[40] [[41] [[42] I teach in these two writing venues, one an annual conference, the other an MFA program: [[43] [[44] Other things I have written that appear on Web: [[45] [[46] [[47] [[48]

How does this get resolved? Lmccullough (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It gets resolved by an editor with enough interest in literature in general or poetry specifically, reviewing the case for notability, and if supported, making a case at the AfD. That editor will not be me, mainly because I have made commitments to other editors that I'm not delivering on.

I see that we have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry, I was going to suggest you try there, but I see you already have.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A Request Edit

I was wondering if you could take a look at some content I put together a few weeks ago here on the McKinsey & Company page. It's actually a bit long, given that many of the books in the proposed draft have their own articles, but some of the books have been subjected to harsh criticisms that I wanted to make sure not to omit to avoid COI problems. I've asked user:Edge3 and User:Cullen328, but they both seem to be busy. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm swamped. Promised to write an article I'm working on, have some Arbcom work to do, the CSD backlog is stubbornly high, the OTRS backlog is scary and am depressed over the growth of the Request Edit backlog. Maybe this evening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked, but it looks to me like it requires some discussion. Will try to put some thoughts together over the weekend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I added some comments to the talk page. Some may be strong, but that's how I feel.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I looked through your notes, checked the sources and I think addressed your feedback (if not let me know). CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with me and all your help on that! Did you want to keep working on the other sections or are you all teetered out for now? I know these reviews can be a lot of work and for a large/complex article like this it is too much for any one editor to do. CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I need a bit of a break. If no one else steps up, ping me at the end of the week and I'll do some more. I site I've linked to probably a thousand times reorganized their site, so I'm manually fixing the links. On a related topic, I'm discouraged about the growth in Request edits again. I thought I found the perfect solution for one, which was medical related and asked here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Edit_request_needs_some_knowledgeable_help but it isn't going well. I've handled a couple, but some are complicated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks like an open and shut case to me; it could be closed out at this point as declined. It is almost never acceptable to link to someone's personal website in a citation, especially if they are not the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Sphilbrick. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. NorthAmerica1000 16:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you be my mentor on Wikipedia

Please Venustar84 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am honored that you would ask, but I'm sorry to say I must decline. I have signed up for more Wikipedia activities than I can handle, and it would be unfair to you. Have you tried Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Redmi

Hi: I noticed that you recently deleted Redmi. The topic is actually notable per sources I added to the article, so requesting userfication to User:Northamerica1000/Redmi so I can work on the article to address promotional tone, improve it, etc. Thank you for your consideration. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the userfication. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment on the AE. Could you please move it to the admin "result" section so it won't be missed? I'd appreciate that. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneYou can see I don't spend much time at AE.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And hopefully this will be my last trip there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

AE Clerk's note

Callanecc noted that you were asking for a one year block is I were to violate the ban again. He's pointed out here that the maximum block for a repeat would be one month. I don't know if you saw that. Don't know if he's waiting for you to state if you're okay with that before he closes. Thanks, SW3 5DL (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about the max, I'm fine with that, my goal was to emphasize that while I can excuse a close call, I will be looking for a long block if repeated.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, either. Might be a good idea to post your reply above over on AE so Callanecc will see it. Thanks again for your understanding of the situation. I really appreciated that. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, things are a bit hectic - I saw your earlier note when I was cleaning up a mess and thought I was posting there. Just noticed my error and made an edit there just about the time you posted here. Let me know if you think more is needed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I posted a note on Callanecc's talk page with a diff of your change so he knows and can close. Thanks for that. Much appreciated. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You missed one

[49] Regards, WCM_email 16:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Will do.

I think someone must have beat me to it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

[50] Today hasn't been my best, guess I lost it for a while. Feel free to remove other comments I made, with the assurance it won't be repeated and it isn't normal. Time for the pub methinks. Regards, WCM_email 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Wish I could join you at the pub.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)