User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 48

Gore Effect
Compare User_talk:Serten - sometimes I regret I ever restarted editing ;) Big Sigh! I have appreciated your constructive comments nevertheless. Serten (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Serten, I did see your comment, although that was an accident. For future use, if you include the user name, as I have just done, it will give them a notification. I find it helpful.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That image means far more than you may realize. My late father was an amateur astronomer, and took it seriously enough to go to South America for an eclipse viewing. He was quite taken by Hale-Bopp, and spent quite some time watching it. I always think of him when I see it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice coincidence - as the Gore effect is about a funny Synchronicity in the scholarly sense - When Hale Bopp was around, I was still in research, earth sciences, but soon made my decision not to make a PHD and leave academia. ;) Youre welcome Serten (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks. I don't remember what I did (now I do, wow, short memory), but it is hot here, so a beer would hit the spot.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Armenian people of Assyrian descent
Hi could you please restore the cat. The reason for it being empty was due to persistent anon vandalism as you can see from its history.--  K a t h o v o  talk 12:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--  K a t h o v o  talk 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:MostTranscludedPages
Wikipedia talk:Special:MostTranscludedPages doesn't actually depend on Wikipedia:Special:MostTranscludedPages, so it wasn't a G8. Can you restore it? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ (Jackmcbarn, sorry about that, it is usually automatic to delete the talk page)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chinatown, Providence
Hi,

Question regarding your deletion of Chinatown, Providence. I've been trying to engage with Binksternet on the talk page as to the nature of the deletion. Doesn't G5 require both that it be created by a blocked user and that it be connected to the block/ban reason? Two people contested the deletion on the grounds that the content is good and doesn't show any signs of abuse. Thanks. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You had me worried, but I think the deletion is valid.


 * Per G5

To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block or ban. For example, pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are in some other topic.

So there is an exception if the user was topic banned, and this wasn't the topic. That isn't the case here.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's block of ban." Then it gives an example of when it would apply, and the reverse of that example. It is nonetheless an example of when it would apply. As with other criteria, it's meant to be, well, a criterion -- something to restrict CSD use. To reword this criterion: "if it's not in violation of a user's block or ban, it doesn't qualify." --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Quick follow-up: I could see where one could argue that any edit while banned is a violation of the ban, but then why include the text "in violation of their ban or block," in bold text no less if any edit by a banned user is automatically in violation of their ban? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This language, to me, makes sense in placing the encyclopedia first. That is, if a user has shown they're not here to build an encyclopedia (e.g. to push a POV), it makes sense to automatically delete pages related to that topic he or she creates. However, if a user is banned for some other reason and still produces good articles, then certainly ban the user if they're using sock puppets but if their work improves the encyclopedia, why delete it? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see arguments on both sides when a banned user creates good content. However, the point of a ban, if done correctly, is that the community has reached a conclusion that the editor, on balance, is not a positive contributor to the project and ought not to be contributing anything, until such time as they persuade the community they can do better. Allowing them to make contributions, and deciding, in each case, whether their contributions are worth keeping is exactly the same as not banning them. So what was the point of the ban? We can only show that we mean it by denying them the ability to edit until they find a way to persuade us they will reform. That means, unfortunately, sometimes deleting otherwise good content.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Since the CSD wouldn't apply if other editors made substantial contributions (beforehand, or upon seeing the CSD, I presume), it seems like other editors in good standing "vouching" for the content or expressing an intent to work on it in the future should serve a similar purpose. Regardless, I suppose that's either a matter for discussion elsewhere (or otherwise a matter of interpretation/judgment for the deleting admin). Would you do me a favor and email the content to me so that sometime in the future I might have a starting point to write a new version of the article? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  21:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See post below. We should handle differently if there were other substantial edits. I may have missed some. Let me know if you think that happened.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete requests
Please explain to me what happens with a speedy delete request if an editor objects to the deletion, but the reason for the deletion was "(G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (D62943) in violation of ban or block)." If the article is timely and accurate, must it be deleted anyway? You deleted a number of Philadelphia streets, even though I objected to the deletion and in some instances improved the articles.

Please explain to me what happens when I request the full text of a deleted article. Do you place it in my sandbox? You should expect such a request from me concerning a number of Philadelphia streets. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the prior post. I struggled with, and still struggle with how to best handle this. There were literally dozens of such articles. In the case of the first few I checked, I noticed that more than one editor's name appeared, but in those case I checked, both of the significant contributor were sockpuppets of the same banned editor. I will confess, that when the inventory of open CSD articles was well over 100, that I might not have checked all rigorously. Here's what I would like to do, but I want community input first (I'll post to VPI shortly.) I will be happy to move the deleted articles to a user space or draft space, with the agreement that the wording provided by any banned editor has to be rewritten enough that it is not a close paraphrase. The the result, when sufficiently cleaned, should be moved to article space but with the original history removed. I do not expect this to be without controversy, so I want some input.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DThomsen8 and others interested, see Village_pump_(idea_lab)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

ExactTarget
I've posted a fairly mundane, super-easy Request Edit here and since the editor I initially collaborated on the page with has since been banned, I was wondering if you had a moment to take a look.

Also, if you ever have time to chip in on an article here and there, let me know. I have a bottomless need for collaboration in my COI work, but I try to avoid becoming too needy. CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been chipping in here and there. Processed one this morning and a couple over the last couple days, including one of yours, I think. I was gung-ho, but after a couple initiatives failed, I'm frankly depressed about what to do next. I'm also a little time challenged. WBCA.org did a site change, creating about 500 dead links. I've cleaned up a chunk, but still many to go, and CSD has been active. I like to keep the backlog below 100, but I've handled a couple hundred each of the last few days and can't keep up. Plus, my 3 week holiday ended yesterday. Got any cheese to go with what has turned into a whine?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know - I love cheese even though it's bad for your health, but I don't like wine. I'm not sure if I understood the metaphor, or maybe I just drudged this conversation into the kind of idle chatter that tends to take place on user:Drmies' page. There is an overwhelming amount of work to do everywhere on Wikipedia, which is part of what makes it interesting. In the corporate world, people are often doing work that is not really very meaningful/impactfull, but on Wikipedia there are enough problems that are severe-enough that you can feel accomplished for fixing them. CorporateM (Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't mean to guilt you into it or anything - just making small talk. Thanks though!!! CorporateM (Talk) 23:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't, I've just been very busy and didn't have a chance earlier.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

About your edit on WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter
The June issue isn't really finished, and it's still being fleshed out. Appreciate the thought, but it isn't really ready, will do that once it's ready. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved it because there was a request by . I didn't look closely, because I recognized the name, and assumed it was fine.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, everything is cool and as I expected. Thanks, no further action needed.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case I've misunderstood the situation. Sorry for causing any disturbance. Also realize now why an admin had to be asked.-- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page Virtual Card Numbers
You have deleted this page that I created for copyright violation, however, I have addressed this issue with the owners of the copy who have given their appropriate permissions. Could you please reinstate the page so I can link in the correct copyright information ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracey Corcoran, have you filed the permission with OTRS? I need to see that the permission is valid. (If you do not know what I'm talking about, just ask, and I'll explain)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did instigate the email as laid down with the Wikipedia copyright sections, and then posted appropriate cross references on the article itself. Maybe I did not do this correctly, but certainly it has been done as owner of the copyright would very much like this information to be available on Wikipedia. Are you able to reinstate the page so I can place it into my sandbox until this is resolved ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just searched our OTRS system, and did not find a recent email with the term "Tracey Corcoran" or "Virtual Card Numbers" in it. I will now trying searching all recent emails, assuming it was sent approximately 23 June.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  10:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The email should have come from within the Conferma organisation, who own the relevant copyright and was sent around 11 June 2014, if that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry this isn't going well. I searched for tickets with "conferma" in them, and found nothing around 11 June. I searched all open tickets delivered on the 10th, 11th and 12th of June to either permissions-commons@undefinedwikimedia.org or permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org, and found nothing.


 * However, I do not think it is worth pursuing. I've looked at the language,a ad it is not acceptable wording for an encyclopedic.


 * A phrase such as:

not only are VCNs a smoother, faster way to pay, they radically improve a organisations ability


 * is absolutely unacceptable. The page, as written was simply an advertisement for Conferma, and would not be acceptable, even if it was not a copyright violation. In other words, if Corferma provides a license to use the words, we will not accept the words for other reasons.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time over this. I understand your comments re the tone, it was written by people used to writing blogs not reference documents.  However, the technology is starting to revolutionize the payments sector and I feel that a page about Virtual Card Numbers, including those by Conferma and all other providers would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia.  How could this be achieved ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 14:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracey Corcoran I'm glad you haven't given up, I know our responses are discouraging.
 * The ideal situation would be an article about the concept, which then might, almost as an aside, mention specific implementations. The focus needs to be on the concept of one-time use numbers, the advantages, the challenges, and then who is doing it.


 * I urge you to read Controlled payment number, subject to a major caution – I think it is an atrocious article, and if I were not overly busy at the moment, I would probably push that the article be either improved or removed. On a positive note, it does hint at some of the generic value of such a number. I do not like the fact that the title is a trademark; I would be happier if the title were the most common generic term for the concept (virtual card number?) and have Controlled payment number as a redirect.  Again, check out the article, but not as a model of how to do it right.
 * As a small point, that article indicates some companies have tried and abandoned the practice. More discussion is warranted. Did they discontinue because they no long belief the concept is valid, or simply because their implementation was flawed. You do not necessarily have to answer that question, but as a consumer of the information, that is a question I would like to see answered. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum, If I had glanced at the history of the article, I would have seen that you knew about the article. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this input, I really appreciate you taking the time over this. My understanding is that Orbiscom were taken over by MasterCard and that their card numbers are now available only via Mastercard. This is, however, an area of much excitement within the Financial & Technical sectors (FinTech) mainly down to the way a single use Card number eliminates almost all fraud possibilities.

I will have another go at improving my submissions over the next couple of months, in the meantime, the copyright permission email has been resent today (1/7/2014) from Simon Barker at Conferma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracey Corcoran, I found the permission email and processed it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, does this mean that this problem will not arise if a future submission uses some text from the Conferma website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracey Corcoran (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tracey Corcoran It is slightly more complicated than that, but only slightly. Many editors have a sixth sense and can tell when some wording sounds like it comes from elsewhere. They might then check and see that it comes form Conferma. In theory, they are then supposed to check the article talk page to see if it is licensed for use, but since literally 999 times out of 1000, that isn't the case, some editors may pull the trigger and report it as a problem. They are unlikely to remove it, they may report it, and since I am one of those checking the reports, I will clean it up. A second possible problem (less likely) is that we have some bots looking for duplicated text, and they are not smart enough to check for OTRS licenses. I do not expect that to happen, but if it does, it will be a report, and I review those reports. Sorry for the long answer, but just trying to let you know that someone might accidentally object - if so, either ping me or point out the OTRS template on the talk page or both, and the problem will go away.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Deskspace
You have deleted the Deskspace page I drafted earlier today - quoting A7. No indication of importance


 * referring to . . WPA7 ....No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)

the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
 * An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[6] This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve

The article I prepared refers to: (1) the European Community Trade Mark DESKSPACE - which is not about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organised event" (2) the software known as "Deskspace:" which has been used in UK, US and New Zealand during the period 1999 to present - which is not about "a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organised event" (3) the company Deskspace Systems Limited - which is an organisation

Hence your objection can only I think relate to the reference to Deskspace Systems Limited since the WP rules do not apply to items (1) & (2)?

The UK Intellectual Property Regulatory Board issued an important statement and professional guidance following a dispute over this Trademark - please see the following  []

It is my intention to expand this article to include reference to the IPREG case - which I suggest does shows adequate importance as requested.

Thank you, Nick Lightbody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.108.7 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking, which is complicated, because of DeskSpace-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Nick Lightbody,I userfied the draft at:
 * User:Nick_Lightbody/Deskspace


 * It is not close to ready.


 * When you think it is ready, be aware that DeskSpace exists, so we will have to do something to avoid confusion. We can cross that bridge later.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I will let you know when the userfied draft is read for your attention - thank you for your assistance - cheers Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.108.7 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have redrafted the Deskspace page and would be grateful for your comments / further questions - thanks for your assistance 78.32.108.7 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The next thing I suggest is looking at Referencing for beginners. Technically, you have no references because they have not been formed correctly.

. None are needed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also see multiple uses of

Avenue of Technology (Philadelphia)
What is happening with Avenue of Technology (Philadelphia)? Tagged for speedy delete, but no deletion yet. I have a copy on my hard drive, from which I expect to create a new article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CSD has been challenging the last few days, stubbornly above 100 open items. When that happens, I know I sometimes try to knock off low-hanging fruit, and save tougher calls for later, maybe some othes do the same thing. I see these as tougher calls. Mulling over what to do, but CSD count is at 159, so that's my first priority.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Royal Australian Navy ranks
Hey, two files that you have recently (09:56, 4 July 2014 for both images) deleted need to be brought back. Both files have been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nford24The names and the reason?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos
Hi how do I add photos from a website with a license lilk846 2:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * lilk846, Depends on the license, Can you give me an example?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you are referring to Hartley photo. You can't do that, but halftime just ended, so I'm headed back to the U17 semifinal, will be back after game.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted the file, it was clearly a copyright violation.
 * I rolled back all your edits, some may not have been a problem and you can redo them if you wish.
 * For some good, basic info on Copyright, see this recent post
 * (The USA beat Hungary in the semi-finals, and will face Spain tomorrow.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Southern Bug
I have reverted your undiscussed controversial move of the Southern Bug River to a partially transliterated name. English language names for places are preferred to transliterations. The matter was discussed on the article talk page in the past.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Methode Electronics
Hi Sphilbrick,

You deleted the page Methode Electronics, but the reason that you provided seems to be invalid, I've followed the same fashion which the page for Freescale_Semiconductor is created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freescale_Semiconductor

There seems to no Advertisements or Promotions in the small content I provided

Methode Electronics (NYSE: MEI) is an American Multinational company headquartered in Illinois, Chicago with Engineering, Manufacturing and Sales Operations in more than 14 locations in 10 countries. The company employs around 4,000 people worldwide.

Earlier I've informed in the talk page that this page is for the company and I got the information from the company site

http://www.methode.com/about.html http://www.methode.com/about/locations.html

Did you happened to see the talk page before deleting this?

Could you inform me with solid reasons that why this page has been deleted.

anandathirumurugan 03:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandathirumurugan (talk • contribs)
 * Anandathirumurugan, The article has issues, but promotion was probably not the right reason for deletion. I've moved it to User:Anandathirumurugan/Methode Electronics, so you can work on it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick

May I know what are the 'issues' with regard to the page,

I am going to re create the page again now, as I didn't see any issues from my end.

anandathirumurugan 04:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Anandathirumurugan (talk)
 * Anandathirumurugan It has no references, for a start. Why are you talking about recreating it? I already did that for you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500
I see you deleted User talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500. I left instructions on it - there is a reason I didn't put db-u1 on it. Will you now, please: Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete my talk page
 * 2) Restore these revisions (Everything before Storye book's attempted archiving)
 * 3) Move those revisions to User talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500 without leaving a redirect
 * 4) Restore the rest of my talk page
 * 5) Restore the revisions of User talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500 you deleted.
 * I restored the page.


 * I didn't follow the rest.


 * Please don't use a CSD request for something that looks complicated. I don't follow what you want done, or the purpose.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hoping breaking down what I wanted into steps was clear enough. I have a policy that when I my talk page has 100 sections, I move it to an archive and start over. When it came to 100 sections, I was blocked for edit warring so I asked the person who posted the 100th section to move my talk page to the archive. Instead, (s)he copied it over. Therefore, I am trying to split up the history to be uniform with the rest of my archives.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound like I'm being difficult, but I am in the middle of trying to help implement an ArbCom decision, while working on a multivariate analysis, and juggling a few other things. Your instructions may be simple, but I don't follow. More importantly, we have bots to do archiving, so I do not follow why you would want to do something manually. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bots archive one way, I archive another.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

UERM Memorial Hospital
Well, I suppose we have to disagree sometimes too! I don't think that is necessarily a false positive, I think it may be a small part of what could be a bad mess involving a lot of articles relating to University of the East. I started looking at last night but it made my head spin, partly because it's all so long ago. Some of the large edits here look very fishy indeed to me, but I've yet to establish anything definite. I suppose it's possible that the content here was copied from our article on University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, but is it likely? Sometimes I think my brain is just too small.

I simply don't understand why does these things (it isn't the first one the bot has tagged), but I have to assume that it's for good reason. Do you think we could un-OK that one for now? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I focused on this phrase The UERM hospital is the entity where UERM students "practice"

in UERM Memorial Hospital

which can be seen in

University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center

in September 2008 The UERM hospital is the entity where UERM students "practice"

The bot identified this site which has a September 2009 date, after the material was in Wikipedia.

Which doesn't provide that the material wasn't lifted from somewhere else, but I didn't find it.

I didn't directly respond to your question, which was about this site. I did a quick glance at the DD] which is troubling, but that would seem to suggest that University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center needs an investigation. I was limiting my investigation to UERM Memorial Hospital-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A question about possible blocked user edits
Last week you and other admins deleted a bunch of redirects I'd tagged as G8. While doing my due diligence during tagging, I noticed a frequently used notation on the previously deleted targets. This referred to a blocked user, and gave a numbered code. Tonight, I'm seeing what I suspect are multiple newly created accounts recreating appropriately targeted redirects (including two G8s from last week). The two accounts I saw were User:Bleep770, and User:Jibo 595. This may not be anything, but it may be something relating to socks of that blocked user. BusterD (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it might make sense to see if they are related, but I don't recall the name of the blocked user. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think the deleted targets would still have that meta information above the blank edit window. My CSD log would give you a list of those G8 redirects deleted. My recollection is that the entries involving "Chinatown" and streets in Philadelphia and Pittsburg would be most likely to contain the info (July entries #77 through 104). My limited understanding of admin tools is that they could be used to look at the deleted G8 content. This would point toward several targets containing the identical numbered code (I only saw one, used many times). BusterD (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)