User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 2

Bonghan
Thanks Sphilbrick, for moving Bonghan Systems. I do check in on a regular (almost weekly) basis and am availabe to respond to changes. I will get to work and link the article to existing articles and add to categories. I would like to add images to the article but the currently published articles have images that are restricted to noncommercial use. I think that I could obtain permission from the researchers but I don't know exactly what format such permission needs to be in, etc. Is there a link that would help me with this?DavidWis (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Kamie Ethridge
Hi - thanks for all of your work on Kamie Ethridge. I started the page mainly because I couldn't believe a player of her stature in the game didn't already have an entry. For example, she was the only member of the 1988 Olympic team without an entry. Glad someone picked up the baton on her article, I remember her being a very dynamic player on that championship Texas team in the 80's. I don't have any connection to her so I don't have any pictures, etc.  Rikster2 (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Sphilbrick - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonghan System quickly gutted
The article which you helped move was quickly gutted and replaced with this outdated statement: The traditions of qi and meridians have no counterpart in modern studies of chemistry, biology and physics and to date scientists have been unable to find evidence that supports their existence.[2]

Is this the how wikipedia is supposed to work? Is there a proper protocol for dealing with this kind of slander? I would appreciate your advice and assistance in this situation. DavidWis (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice. I will see if I can find help as you recommended.DavidWis (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unimportant, but I'm curious
I was intrigued by this and have taken a few stabs at deciphering the reference. As you are a dedicated and conscientious editor I was, and remain, appreciative of your support. I say that to convey that no explanation is necessary, only that I am curious. See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  17:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Users who asked for feedback in past, giving feedback in future
Hi there.

Your comment about asking previous users got me thinking, so I did some data analysis - and I think I have a listing of good candidates for helping out.

I have extracted data on users that appear to have asked for feedback (by creating a new section on the page) during the year 2009, and who have more than 150 contributions.

See User:Chzz/feed.

I think that asking these people to help might be a very good idea, but I'm not sure about automating it; probably we should look at their request and what happened, and their contribs, before asking for their help - I have provided links to their 2009 request, and noted their edit count and the date of their most recent edit.

If you could, perhaps, work down the list and see what you think...

...if we wish to alter the criteria (number of edits, date range, etc) and re-run the query, I can do so.

I look forward to hearing what you think. As always, note, I am not good at 'watching' pages, so if you respond here, let me know on my talk too. Best,  Chzz  ► 23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk; please read it. Also, remember, you can often find me online - this link will get you direct to my own channel.  Chzz  ► 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FEED proposal
Now in good enough shape to ask for comments in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_feedback.  Chzz  ► 04:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kamie Ethridge
Hello! Your submission of Kamie Ethridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Quasihuman (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanks very much for helpful edits on Sophie Chandauka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.100.108 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I can see how that could have been confusing. I think I meant to include the Mark Steyn information in the same parentheses with the Tim Blair sentence as a kind of aside about an earlier use of the term. Anyway, Hipocrite removed almost the entire passage and there's a discussion about it on the talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not communicating this well enough
I tried to explain what I was doing with that passage at Talk:The Gore Effect. Please take a look here. If both you and Cla68 are disagreeing with me about this, perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough. I'm interested in seeing what you think. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did misunderstand one point you made, later understood it better. Events have moved on, so I'm not going to look into this further unless it is still important to resolve.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kamie Ethridge
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing during AFD process
Per the notice incorporated in the AFD tag at the top of the page: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion" Active Banana (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But my edit summaries probably should have been more specific and clear about my intentions. Active Banana (talk)
 * Thanks. I over-reacted a bit, because I thought you removed a citation that was both highly relevant, and had been discussed a couple times. I was wrong. The good news is that I avoided accusing you of improper conduct, however, I should have read a little more carefully to avoid even implying you did something wrong. The dangers of editing highly contentious article. Oh well, I've learned a lesson, though it was one I thought I had already learned.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support! Duoduoduo (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Frisbee (TV network)
Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Frisbee (TV network) - a page you tagged - because: '''Foreign language articles are explicitly excluded from CSD G1. .''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Do not be discouraged from patrolling pages! Just check the criteria if in doubt and you'll be fine, I'm sure.  (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor this, but it is discouraging. If I had failed to look at the criteria, and was proceeding on faulty memory or assumption, I'd be OK. But I made a point of checking the criteria. Part of me thinks the criteria should be written such that qualifying items are in one paragraph, and excluded are in another, as an aid to the reader, but part of me thinks I should just read more carefully.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm all for the text being as clear and unambiguous as can be. Anyway, the article was a copy of an article on another project, so it was eligible for speedy still. My mistake for not checking that!  (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's funny, because when the Twinkle list popped up, I saw that one of the options was that it may have come from another project. But I didn't know how to check that, so i didn't give it any consideration. Sorry to keep bothering you over this minor issue, but I am interested in learning from my mistakes, so I want to know.-- SPhilbrick  T  17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you recognize the language, you could always pop over to that language's Wikipedia and see if it exists, although I personally think it's worth seeing if someone is willing to do a quick translate even if it does. Had I been fluent in Italian, I'd almost certainly have done this instead of tagging for deletion. Oh, and do feel free to bother me anytime you want! Regards,  (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nofeed Template
Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! ~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  _Contact Me_ · Get Adopted!   04:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback - please help me out
Re. WP:FEED, new system

I think you've probably seen my comments on the talk page, about how we need to restructure the feedback system so that we have one page for each day, we transclude the most recent days on the main page, set up navigation, move the current requests across, add a box at the top showing the 'oldest outstanding requests', etc etc.

This really is desperately needed; the volume of requests now makes for a VERY long page, and archiving is not the best method at all; it can confuse new users, when their feedback 'disappears', etc. With a page-per-day, the links to their feedback would always remain - so we could alert them with a link on their talk page, and it won't matter if they check in 1 day, 1 week, 1 month or 1 year - their feedback will still be there.

I've had a 'demo' of it set up, and got a bit of help with the templates to auto-transclude the most recent days, etc - please look at User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback - please look also at a 'demo' day, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and the nav page, User:Chzz/Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/navigation.

The demo isn't quite perfect, but to be honest, if we wait until it is, nothing will happen. We need to boldly implement it.

To do that, first of all, we need to clear things.

So, can you please help me by moving any and all feedback into the archive, and tell the users with a note, something like this one.

The move-over to the new method will be much easier if we clear things down.

I'm going to ask others for help, and try to get help with the transclusions stuff too.

Sorry this is a bit of a long message; I think it's important to sort this out, ASAP - and I need help with it.

Thanks,  Chzz  ► 03:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - This has now happened; there is no need to archive anything, any more. Now there are separate pages for each day, we no longer need to move old requests into a separate archive.


 * The main WP:FEED page will automatically just show the past few days.


 * Please check over everything, because I'm sure there are lots of mistakes that need sorting out. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 12:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice and the update - I will try to check it out today, but probably late in the day, at the end of of my work day.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Legrand
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

adminhelp
I moved a page at a user request. The resulting page is Baptism integrity. However, the user created the page in their user page, not a user subpage, so the user talk page came along for the ride. (I realized after doing the move, I should have unclicked the box to move the talk page.) I'd like to clean up my mess, but I'm not quite sure what to do. Can you tell me, and let me do it. so I learn?-- SPhilbrick  T  14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I could move it back to User:Capcourt, then try the move again without bringing along the talk page. But I'm not sure that's the best thing to do.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the talk page back, db-g6 the resultant redirect. – xeno talk 14:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved the talk page back to its original location, and removed the redirects it created. There is an option on the move screen to move a page without moving the talk page as well. Unchecking that option should allow you to move a page without having the talk page tag along. Do note that moving a page creates a redirect as well, which is why his user page and user talk page pointed to the new article's. Unless you are an admin there is no way to prevent this (Admins can suppress redirects), so you should remove these redirects afterwards to allow for further editing. In a general-purpose sandbox simply creating a new page is sufficient, in a named sandbox you could mark the page as to ask for their removal.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hi; I'm sorry that you seem to have got disconnected from IRC, so thought I'd answer here instead.

This 'moving userspace to live' thing - happens a lot, SPhil. No big problem.

If you'd only moved the user page over, not the talk, then all you need to do afterwards is edit the user talk page, which will have become a redirect to the live article, and I suggest replacing it with.

In this case, someone had deleted it - so I've created a new one.

When you've accidentally moved the users talk page too, then yes, it's best to ask an admin to move it back. It's also useful to create a talk page for the live article, ie a Talk:Baptism integrity, with

Whilst writing this message, the live article Baptism integrity was deleted.

Nice work trying to help the user on their talk page. You might want to use a link to WP:USERSPACEDRAFT.  Chzz  ► 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Littleport, Cambridgeshire
Hi. I have been working on Little Thetford which is now WP:GAN. You were kind enough to welcome me when I first started editing in late May 2010. I was having a crack at Littleport, Cambridgeshire (diff]. Would you cast a brief eye over it (not a review by any means - one minute max). Let me know if you think I can change its quality from stub to start class please. I have annoted work in progress on the article talk page. --Senra (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, congrats on the GAN, hope it goes well. As for Littleport, absolutely, the quality is at least start class - I haven't spent much time following the quality standards, but I feel comfortable saying it is well beyond stub class.


 * One minor question- I would have though "Parliament" would be capitalized, as you are referring to a specific one. You probably know the rules better than I do, but I would have guessed that lower-case meant the general concept, while upper-case would be used when referring to a specific body.


 * I like your approach of identifying work in progress on the talk page - I do that sometimes, and I think it helps potential editors who may consider contributing.


 * The article is looking great, thanks. --  SPhilbrick  T  16:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged and thank yo0u for the tip. You are correct of course. --Senra (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles Nominated for Deletion
What happens when an article is nominated for deletion? Isn't it supposed to be removed by an agent after a week if there are no objections? Is there sometimes a backlog that builds up? We thought this would be gone by now. Thanks for any information or advice. LoreMariano (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, so I'm not actively in the process, but this is my understanding - when a proposed deletion tag is placed on the article, if no one contest it in the meantime, it will be on a list.


 * For example, that list is


 * Administrators are supposed be checking the items on the list and deleting them. However, it isn't the most urgent item on the list of things admins are supposed to do, so it could get backlogged at time. :I note here there are none from prior to 12 June, so it looks like they are roughly a day behind.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very helpful, thank you. I'll hold on another day!! LoreMariano (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, I added the ref links. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugenecurry blocked
You said,


 * Looks to me like "We don't like him, so he's blocked." What did I miss?

You didn't miss anything. Eugene was falsely accused by Slrubenstein of being an anti-Semite and Eugene brought the issue to AN/I, where absolutely nothing happened. Slrubenstein did not even offer an apology from what I can remember. And during that discussion another user implied that Eugene was pedophile enabler, and nothing was done about that either. On another occasion a few months back, Eugene received a death threat from another user (I forget his user name, but I can find it for you if you really want it). That user was blocked for a few weeks (a month?), and then was allowed to return after he issued an apology. I wonder how long Eugene will be blocked for a so-called "attack article"; an "attack article" that only a selected few people were allowed to view.

So, once again, you didn't miss anything. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment—it's a rather unsettling situation.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By the way, full disclosure - I should have mentioned this earlier, but I have defended Eugene in the past because of the way he has been mistreated in relation AN/I as well as in his contributions to the Christ myth theory article.  So, although I sincerely believe I'm being fair, I'm still involved in the dispute between SlimVirgin and Eugene.  Be that as it may, what Eugene did was foolish and from what I've read on Slimvirgin's talk page, he regrets it and has apologized.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had some blistering encounters with Eugene. He tends to ABF and battle, and is very reluctant to compromise. But he exemplifies the anti-CMT position, so any consensus involving him on the page should be robust. Therefore I believe he is a valuable part of the process. Once it becomes apparent that he genuinely sees that his SV page was ad hom and not on, I'd like to see him back. But, since he'd be returning to a page regularly visited by SV, she would have to feel comfortable about it. I should point out, the blistering was mutual. Anthony (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Updated. Anthony (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Anthony, whether or not SV is comfortable about Eugene returning to a subject which he has a lot of knowledge about is not the issue. What is critically important is that Eugene owns his foolish behavior - which he has.  If there is something else that needs to be done by Eugene to convince SV that he is sincerely sorry, then all she has to do is to state it.


 * At any rate, it is certainly true that you have had some "blistering encounters" with Eugene but such encounters have, from what I can recall, never been personal and ugly. You asked some very hard "show me" type of questions which, IMHO, was akin to steel sharpening steel.  Well done, my friend.  Therefore, after Eugene has done some time in the penalty box, all I'm suggesting is that his mistakes are evaluated in proportion to his contrition, as well as how he intends to conduct himself in the future.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It was dirty pool; an attempt to destabilize an opponent. Eugene knows that if it was posted, SV would be constantly troubled by it. The admins that blocked him read it that way. I did. SV did. Anybody would. Eugene needs to acknowledge there was an element of that - even if, at the time, he was kidding himself about his motives - and apologize for that. Presently, he's apologizing for a foolish mistake. That's not what's required here. What's required is something more. Anthony (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempting to destabilize an "opponent" such as SV is ludicrous. She is a well-established editor with very little, if anything, to fear.  Eugene is a knowledgeable editor with regards to the CMT.   Nevertheless, what is that thing which is "something more"?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford
Little Thetford

You may not recall, but you were very welcoming to me as a new editor on 9th June 2010. I was frustrated that the hat was still there, even after I thought I had cleaned up the page. You corrected my assumption that it would automatically be removed. Your support at the time was very welcome. Little Thetford reached GA status today, so thank you. --Senra (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post on my page—My answer here.


 * Reaching out is what I do. Seasoned editors can get frustrated at new editors. So anyone who provides a useful welcome to a new user like you did, deserves seeking out and thanking. I encourage you to continue such work. It really helps.


 * Treasure? Now now. Go easy. Anyway, I do not get turned off easily. I made early mistakes. They were my fault. I learned how to correct them or asked for help. I have been around enough boards in my time to learn a new one quickly enough.


 * Each to their own. I am truly sorry a GA has not come your way yet. It will. In the meantime, helping people the way you do needs to be treasured. Keep it up.


 * --Senra (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Do you happen to know Yoninah's email? I would like to ask his assistance on a particularly contentious section of an article now being re-written. It is so contentious that I am afraid to leave a message on his talk page. Since you and he did such good work on the Terrain Gallery article I thought I might ask, but it is much more difficult than that one. Thanks. Trouver (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not know Yoninah's email address. However, if you go to your preferences (i.e. "My preferences" at top of screen), click on user profile, then make sure you have a valid email address in the optional email box, and check the box next to "Enable e-mail from other users" that will trigger an entry in the toolbox (left margin) in your user page. (see my user page or talk page to see the entry "E-mail this user"). You could then leave a message at Yoninah's talk page requesting that you correspond my email, and if he is willing he can click on the link to send you an email. That way neither of you have to post your email address onwiki, but you will then have his email address, assuming he is willing to give it to you.


 * Is this clear? I've had a long day, and I'm not thinking clearly, so if my instructions aren't clear, just ask. It isn't hard, but it sure sounds complicated.-- SPhilbrick  T  01:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Deburau
Hello. I hope this is not an imposition. I just finished (I think) my new page on the mime Charles Deburau, and I wondered if you'd be interested in looking it over before I move it to public view. If you don't have the time, please tell me; having been a teacher myself for many years, I know how precious the commodity is, and so can appreciate your frank admission of its paucity. (And maybe you can recommend another editor who can help?) At any rate, I think the page is generally okay (the block quotes are short, this time). I haven't added the images, since I've learned that they're verboten on subuser pages, but I have four good ones lined up. I know that the S&eacute;verin section should be in a page of its own, but until I write it it won't exist. So anyway: there it is. (A b-ball fan? I can't talk sports with you, alas, or at least team sports; tennis is the only game I follow; Wimbledon is now on the tube.)  Oh: the page is available at User:Beebuk/Charles Deburau. Beebuk 23:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to check it out, but I can only wear my "I have a clue about Wikipedia" glasses on - not my "I have a clue about pantomime" because I don't own a pair of those.


 * Sorry we can't talk basketball, but I watched most of the Isner/Mahut match, so we can talk a little tennis - my wife is the tennis player and expert, though.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left an answer (at my own talk: should I do that?) to your long and very welcome set of notes that I just found on that page. What readerly heroism!!  Beebuk 02:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Texas Longhorns women's basketball
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Is the use of a primary document which contains an address were an identifiable living person can be found allowed? I have been told no, but also i have been told yes :). This is the article in question Science and Public Policy Institute this is a link to said document, i have removed it and posted on the article talk page, but if no-one sees that i`d like a second opinion, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the policies off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I just stumbled across the Arbcom evidence page, which has a due date of tomorrow, so I am working on my comments at the moment. Should I have some time after finishing that, I will take a look at your question. I hope to have plenty of time, but I do have some non-WP items I need to complete as well. I will try to respond later today in either case.-- SPhilbrick  T  20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I just looked it up, and WP:BLP seems pretty clear, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." OTOH, "if the primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source".  So unless the address is also published by a secondary source, it's not allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope AQFK's answers is helpful, my search for diffs is taking far longer than I had hoped.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope that`s fine, should someone revert it back i know i can remove it without being dropped in the poop, thanks guys mark nutley (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's funny. You think getting advice from others will keep you from getting dumped on? :)-- SPhilbrick  T  22:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, but it`s a bit of an umbrella :) mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, let's hope it's a sturdy one.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Section too long?
Did you check anyone else's? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just finished reading them all; I don't recall that any others were as long, but maybe I was more tired near the end, so the sheer length jumped out at me. I could be wrong, you are free to check.--  SPhilbrick  T  21:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ZP5 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys? This is not something either of you need to be discussing. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're going to allow sections over the limit. But I don't quite see why you want to prohibit discussion of the issue William M. Connolley (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Amory I was stunned to find that bringing an item under the remit of the clerk to the attention of the clerk was out of bounds. Message received. But checking on my talk page for discussions? Quite out of line.
 * @WMC - I agree. When I checked it, I was thown off by the collapsed section - and while considering whether or not it should be counted, then realizing it didn't matter, I missed that it wasn't the end of ZP5. My bad. But I'll let others mention it - once burned...-- SPhilbrick  T  11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Suit yourselves. I think you both know it's an unhelpful and pointless line of discussion. ~  Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TGL is above 3k, for example; and that is ignoring the "reading guide" William M. Connolley (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I posted on your talk page (now removed) no need to mention that one as it has already been addressed-- SPhilbrick  T  17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ælfwaru, Aelfwaru, and Aefwaru
Hi. Thank you for your continued help. I really appreciate it. I do not like using helpme all the time, so I thought I would ask directly. I think I messed up again. These are the steps I did:
 * 1) Created new page Ælfwaru
 * 2) Created English alphabet equivalent redirecting Aefwaru (which I had misspelled) to Ælfwaru
 * 3) Created correct spelling of English alphabet equivalent redirecting Aelfwaru to Ælfwaru
 * 4) Tidied up redirects. At least I thought so
 * 5) Marked Aefwaru for deletion
 * 6) Typed Aelfwaru into a wikipedia search today and it went to Aefwaru

so something is still wrong. To try and be clear, Ælfwaru is the main page and Aelfwaru is a redirect page to Ælfwaru. Aefwaru should be deleted. Would you check my work please. Once again, so sorry for being such a pain.

In addition, I did a fancy partial transclusion of Talk:Ælfwaru (a cut/paste of a section from Talk:Little Thetford) to Talk:Little Thetford. I am proud of it as it seemed to work as I intended but I guess you had better check it too. --Senra (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good news, everything looks fine, regarding the Ælfwaru redirects. It sounds like it is working exactly as you want. I wondered if maybe some kind gnome cleaned up a double-redirect, but I don't see any evidence of that happening. In any event:
 * the main article exists,
 * the English alphabet equivalent exists, and
 * properly redirects, while
 * the misspelled one has been deleted.


 * I haven't yet checked out the cut/paste move, but I will. Back to more general comments.


 * Don't hesitate to use the WP:HELPDESK, they are very patient and interested in helping. Plus, it is easier for several people to look at a question and let the one with expertise answer it. Trust me, if you see the types of questions from people who don't have a clue, and whose efforts are barely improving WP, when someone sees the quality that you are producing, they will be thrilled to help.
 * Noted. The above (highlighted phrase) means a lot to me. I am 58 and currently out of work. Someone recognising that I can do something, really is appreciated. Thank you --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed you added the inuse template to Ælfwaru; please don't forget to remove it when you are not actively working on it.
 * though I will back to finish this article. I used the in-use hat because kept adding stuff like citation needed and inconclusive whilst I was writing the article. It was annoying me. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping someone would come through for you on the flesh-hook image, doesn't look like it will happen immediately, but I still have hope.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am relaxed about it. I did my best and it did not happen. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One other minor point - when you said you searched for Aelfwaru (item 6 above), did that happen before midnight? Certain things get cleanup up around midnight, in particular, the index. Which might explain why it didn't work when you tried, but is fine now.-- SPhilbrick  T  12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not before midnight, around 13:00 (GMT+1) today. It may have been a Firefox cache thing. I just used SHIFT-RELOAD then tried searching for "Aelfwaru" from wikipedia main page and it worked. So thanks you. --Senra (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)