User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 80

Way forward
Hi Sphilbrick,

I apologize for not reading a comment of your correctly 5 weeks ago. I confess its already stale in my mind. I answered at the talk page, since you didn't provide instructions about subsequent dialogue. If the remark you commented on still bothers you, in light of my reply there, you're invited to redact that part of my comment provided you also redact the subsequent back and forth about it. I didn't want to just delete the part and leave the discussion, since that would be very confusing for others, or for us if we ever revisit the thread for some other reason long after in the archives. Alternatively, if your still unhappy after reading my reply and don't want to do the redacting yourself do I have your permission to redcat your half of the subsequent back and forth? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I struck out the relevant passages so the more anal followers can still read the exchange. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny thing about BS is that it usually has anal origins. To help everyone WP:FOC I just erased/deleted it all, which is what I meant by "redact".  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. That's fine.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, happy to help. I confess I paused on a couple of silver star recipients but the criteria are clear and they don't qualify. I wouldn't mind if we as a community decided our notability requirements were too tough but that's a whole different kettle of fish.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, however it comes down to a bulk creation from database extract situation that the community has expressed it's thoughts on previously (See the numerous "database extract" generated NRHP articles that were created). Hasteur (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm very familiar with NRHP issues, having both supported and sparred with Doncram at various time.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oopsie.
Hey, hey, I think we clashed on 2017070610018962 I've unlocked it, so feel free to proceed along with it. Thanks! Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Happyme22 • Dragons flight
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Zad68

Guideline and policy news
 * The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news
 * Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
 * A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous
 * A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
 * A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
 * Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ticket
Could you take a look at 2017022610007071 and determine if you'd like to respond further? If not, please close it out; it doesn't make much sense for another volunteer to respond given its nature. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Tables in USA Women's Pan American Team
I notice you've done the bulk of the updates to USA Women's Pan American Team (though nothing in the last 2 years). I've been looking to create some player biographies of AAU women's basketball players, I noticed they are under-represented on Wikipedia. The player list in that article would normally be a great source of redlinks to work from, but unfortunately it's broken into first name / last name columns so no names are wikilinked at all. Was wondering if you'd have objections if I did some surgery to fix this. The sortability by last name can be preserved by using the sortname template. Anyway, it's going to take a bit of effort to do it so I didn't want to start on it if it would step on any toes. Let me know what you think. --Krelnik (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, I had a family event in NY, and just home. Will respond in more detail soon.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

First, thanks for reaching out to me before making any changes. I appreciate it. Before you do any surgery, let's talk about two goals which don't play well together:
 * 1) Sortable tables which will allow you to sort on any one of the fields with many of the fields important sort variables with the arguable exception that first name is least important.
 * 2) Links to articles, which generally require a link to the full article name which is typically first name and last name

I want both, but given that many of the player names are either not notable on their own or could be notable but would still be red links, I opted for a sortable table. Two possibilities occur to me — either keeping it as it is but changing the last name to be a pipe to the full name and linked, or dropped the desire to sort on both first and last name and have a feel for name which would be the full name but set up so it sortable on last name. I slightly prefer the second. We also have to deal with the fact that many of the names are repeated because they are players or coaches for more than one team in the convention is the first instance is linked and not subsequent ones.

Can you throw out some thoughts on what sort of changes you are thinking of making?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess I wasn't clear. I was planning to combine first name and last name columns to form just a normal name field. As you point out, sorting on first name is not very useful. Once the names are together, they can be easily wikilinked as desired. I agree, we probably don't want to redlink them all as not all will pass notability, but I'm also looking forward to providing inbound links to the bios of those who are. As for sorting, there's a template sortname that creates the magic so that if you sort on the name field, it will sort the names in the expected way - by last, and then by first - without having to do something unpleasant like put all the names in "Smith, James" format.  For an example of that template in action, see the sortable table in Georgia Women of Achievement. --Krelnik (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you were clear. I do lose the ability to sort on first name but as mentioned that's not a big deal. I know some editors support the notion that names which seem like they ought to be notable but don't yet have an article should be red linked, but I'm not a fan of that, so my preference would be to link only those that have existing articles. However that's a personal preference so go ahead.
 * You indicated that your interest is in AAU. Do you have Ikard's book, Just For Fun?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at what is visible of that book on Google Books, and Worldcat tells me there is a copy in a library in my town so I'm planning to go look at it some Saturday to get at some info that I can't get from Google.  It seems to me that a bunch of the top players in AAU would easily make notability - many of them were on medal-winning teams in the Pan Am Games or the FIBA World Championship and a handful are in the WBHOF.  I'm working on Lometa Odom right now, others I've gathered some source material on are Alline Banks, Anne Paradise, Judy Bugher, Lurlyne Greer, Doris Rogers, Eckie Jordan, Margaret Sexton and Rita Alexander. --Krelnik (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to collaborate. I have the book in my bookcase so I'd be happy to work on adding material that could be source to that book although if you've got it in your library in town will be hard for you to access. I like the list of names you have; while I don't know them all, several are very familiar.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ETA: This is the first time I've done a basketball bio from scratch, here's my work in progress on Odom, let me know if the infobox looks ok to you. Lometa Odom --Krelnik (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good start. Odom is mentioned on page 111 (and 132 very briefly) of Ikard.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I trust you will sort out the Plainview High School dab. (I know, it's still a draft, just showing you that I'm paying attention :) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alline Banks is extensively covered in Ikard.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of
When you deleted Talk:Tony Bell (physicist) under WP:G8 did you mean to delete Talk:Anthony Raymond Bel? Following some odd moves the article is currently at Tony Bell (physicist). Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Your comment about odd moves may help explain what happened but the page I deleted was a redirect to itself.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure what happened but it looks like a move followed by a botched move back. Anyway I have recreated Talk:Tony Bell (physicist) with the proper content and I guess Talk:Anthony Raymond Bel should be deleted at some stage. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I deleted that extraneous talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of PWI, Inc
I could wish that you had not restored and userfied PWI, Inc, given how promotional it was. I think a better result would have perhaps been achieved if the editor had been forced to start over. In fact, this one is almost to the level tha tit merits a speedy deletion from promotional content even in user space, and someone may tag it for such, whoch would send a rather mixed message. I am not going to so tag this, nor raise this issue on the help desk, this is jsut a FYI note to you with a suggestion for the future. I do moderately often userfy or draftify articles instead of speedy deleting them or restore them as drafts on request. So i understand your action here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. My motivation is that a brand-new editor, attempting to create a new article and not knowing our best practices, finds the article nominated for deletion almost immediately, possibly presuming that they would have a chance to rectify issues raised, and seeing a notice that says if they want to contest the deletion they should posted on the article talk page, which they did, and there's no indication that it was read. It may have been read and found insufficient but how is John supposed to know that? I tried to put myself in John's position and I could easily imagine that he started off with honest intentions to become a volunteer and contribute to this project and his contributions of be in summarily dismissed without even much notice. I wouldn't be a happy camper if that happened to me, so I thought I'd bend over backwards (perhaps too far) and extend a fig leaf (sorry for the butchering of mix metaphors). I suspect it's an employee, which is why I left the COI notice and if I'm right I suspect we won't hear anything.


 * I can appreciate that with promotional tone it may be better to start over but there was also an INFOBOX which is a fair amount of work. In any event I understand your feeling that it would've been better to do nothing but I feel bad that a brand-new editor was handled in a way that follows our guidelines but from their point of view they are feeling like they been dumped upon.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see John's POV, and of course he was not to be expected to know our policies. I was not suggesting to do nothing, but to offer to work with him -- perhaps to restore just the infobox. I do tend to bend over backwards to help editors in such a position myself -- so much so that i have been accused of wanting to support paid editors. I was thinking that if he started from the old text, enough promotional tome might remain that the draft would never be approved, or would be deleted after it was moved back to mainspace, depending on who the draft reviewer turned out to be. But each case is different, and I am not saying you were wrong. Anyway it is done, and I am surely not suggesting re-deleting it now.
 * A Couple of other points:
 * When I restore a page to userspace, I always add userspace draft, and if I restote to draft space, I always add AFC draft to the page. I have added userspace draft to User:John847/PWI, Inc.. I urge you to consider doing this in future cases of he sort.
 * The infobox, like many corporate infoboxes, contains a logo. Most logos are uploaded under fair use, and may not be used outside of article space. This one is marked as CC-BY-SA, and as being John's "own work". I suspect that is not correct, and he did not understand what he was doing when he so marked it. I am not sure whether to reach out to John about it, or just propose it for deletion on commons.
 * Thanks for being sympathetic to the plight of the new editor, even the COI editor, So many are not around here these days. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point re user space draft template. I'll try to incorporate that into my process. I vaguely consider the logo and I'm kicking myself for not looking further because I do a fair amount of logo work. The reason I'm kicking myself is that if I had seen that it was described as own work, that would've been strong evidence that it's an employee and I might have reconsidered whether to restore the article. No, I'm not missing the fact that it's probably not his own work. I think I'll propose the logo for deletion.


 * Yes, in summary my goal was to try to be responsive to an editor caught up in the complicated processes we have and I probably went a little too far.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully understand, and have done much the same. On the logo, Many people see that "own work" lets them save an image, and click it with no basis at all, so I would not conclude that John is an employee based on that. He might well be, but he might just be a fan or someone wanting more complete coverage. No telling. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better if he's a fan but that makes it less likely he is the creator of the logo. Even if he is the creator I think it's highly unlikely he's the copyright holder — I've nominated the logo for deletion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and have supported your nomination. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Requested Edit
The Avast page has a dedicated awards section. I have proposed removing it or trimming/renaming it on the Talk page, disclosing my COI. I thought maybe you had a minute to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Histmerge
Good morning Sphilbrick. Would you be able to undelete and histmerge User:Anarchyte/RWR into Running with Rifles? It turns out that a couple of years ago I copied and pasted the contents from the old page into article space, and only just realised. I'm not entirely sure how to histmerge, so would you be able to? Thanks a bunch,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  02:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did the undelete, but I'd prefer to leave the history merge to someone with more experience; I haven't done one in years.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for undeleting it. I believe did a histmerge for me in the past.  Would you be able to take a look? Thanks,   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * is basically the master of history merges. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * History-merging User:Anarchyte/RWR into Running with Rifles :: They are WP:Parallel histories, and were being developed separately at the same time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh well. How about merging up to here? It looks like that's where I decided it was time to move it into mainspace. This shows how inexperienced I was two years ago...  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have made more sense to have moved the draft's whole history over and only restored the non-parallel edits, as now some edits will rest at the draft's title rather than in the deleted history of the main article. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page of Andreas Loschel
Thanks for your explanation but it still unclear to me which part of the biography was copyrighted material as the information I reproduced are the career, education and accomplishments of Professsor Loschel which were all derived from his curriculum vitae. As I have mentioned, I have paraphrased statements that are possible for paraphrasing. The same information in his staff profile, have in fact been reproduced in numerous websites like the G20 and others which I have also referenced in the page before you summarily and arbitrarily deleted the page without giving me ample time to correct the alleged violations. In the court of law, respondents are given time to respond and explain and I am extremely disappointed and inconvenienced by your summary and arbitrary action when the page wasn't even up for more than 6 hours. Allyadigue (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are well aware that some websites will copy material from other websites and not bother to arrange for permission. However, we respect copyright, your opening sentence identifies the issue, that you "reproduced are the career, education and accomplishments of Professsor Loschel which were all derived from his curriculum vitae." That curriculum vitae is copyrighted. You cannot simply copy it. As I previously mentioned, list of publications in some circumstances are acceptable. While it is not considered a good practice to start with copyrighted material and make changes to it, if you choose to do it that way you should do that off-line. Not everyone realizes that when we say we respect copyright we don't simply mean the version of the article that is current, we need every prior version. If you copy and paste material from a copyrighted source and fix it five minutes later, we have to track down and remove the earlier version. It is better if you make changes off-line and make sure when you post something in a Wikipedia article, even a draft, it is free of copyright issues. This is nonnegotiable.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In general what you say is absolutely correct, Sphilbrick. But do remember that under Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. a simple list of facts is not protected by copyright at all in the US. In the case of a CV, where a list is presumably 1) complete, and so has no originality of selection; 2) phrased in an obvious way, and so has no originality of wording; and 3) ordered in an obvious manner (usually chronological) and so has no originality of arrangement, there may well in fact be no copyright protection for the original, and so a close paraphrasing of the original is not in fact a copyvio, and should not be deleted as such. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you check the definition of copyright in Wikipedia? Copyright is defined as "a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution. This is usually only for a limited time. The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use. A major limitation on copyright is that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the underlying ideas themselves."By definition, a CV does not qualify as a "creative work" and to qualify as a copyright, the CV of Andreas Loschel should have been registered with agency or office in charge of intellectual property right in his country of domicile or any country he registered it with. Did you check whether it has been registered? I think what you are referring to is plagiarism, which I have explained previously does not also apply in this case. I think you should carefully study the definition of copyright and plagiarism before invoking them. I see your point that I should have done the editing offline but you should have mentioned it previously before arbitrarily deleting the entire article. I understand your role as editor but you should use your authority sparingly and with due diligence. Is there a way I can retrieve the article I created. You see, all of our time is important, if only you bothered to give me ample time before getting too excited to delete an article which I spent hours on, this will not be an issue. Allyadigue (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Where on earth did you get "By definition, a CV does not qualify as a "creative work" and to qualify as a copyright, the CV of Andreas Loschel should have been registered with agency or office in charge of intellectual property right in his country of domicile or any country he registered it with." ?


 * The sentence contains two separate "facts":
 * 1. That a CV is not a creative work
 * 2. Registration of works are required to qualify for copyright


 * I don't believe either of those are true. Can you cite your source?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of FontShop International
Hi – when you placed this merger request, you asked for FontShop International to be merged into Transport in Coimbatore. I'm sure this was an error and you probably just copied and pasted the request above and forgot to change the destination. I'm guessing what you wanted to do was merge FontShop International and FontShop, but I don't want to assume anything, so would you like to review your request and edit it? Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Yes, my guess is I tried copying a prior merger request as a "template" and did a bad job of replacement. I fixed the request I hope.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought it might be something like that – just wanted to bring it to your attention because I didn't want to second-guess your actual request. Richard3120 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you asked. On occasion, I think I'm sure what someone meant, and learned they meant something else, so, especially when there is no rush, worth asking.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, had my phone volume too low.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Westlake
Hello! I notice you recently removed text from the article Nigel Westlake as a possible copyright violation. I'm not sure if we copied the other site or it copied us, but if it is a copyright violation then much more of the article's history will need to be hidden as we have had more or less the same text since the article was created back in 2007. Is there a way of determining when this text first appeared on the other site? --Deskford (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not a trivial undertaking. Would you be willing to start the process? Are you familiar with the Wayback Machine?


 * I trust you now to look at the Wikipedia article history to see when the phrasing was first in the article. Then look at the possible source And look through the way back machine to see if you can find when the wording was first at that site.


 * If you get lucky, you will reach a definitive conclusion about which one was first. It doesn't always work but sometimes you get lucky. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've dabbled with the Wayback Machine in the past – I'll have a go and see what I can find. (Not immediately, though – I'm just about to go offline for a few hours.)  --Deskford (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Great! Please let me know how it turns out.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the Wayback Machine doesn't have an archive of the page on imaxmusic.net that contains this text. However I noticed that the copyright statement at the bottom of the imaxmusic.net page is dated "2010–2016". This led me to look at the Whois database and, sure enough, the domain imaxmusic.net was first created on 26 January 2010. The text in question has been on the Wikipedia page since 31 March 2007, so I can only conclude that imaxmusic.net must have copied it from Wikipedia and not the other way round. --Deskford (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. In theory, I should fix it, but it isn't great timing. Can you do it? If not I will but you might have to remind me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do, either later today or possibly tomorrow. I'll put a note on the article's talk page too, explaining what I'm doing. --Deskford (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I took care of it. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Deskford (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you're around...
Mind hopping on Teamspeak so I can pass some ideas past you in advance of tomorrow's meeting? ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm connected.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I dragged you into the right channel. Just speak when you're back. :) ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Difficulties with a Couple of Other Users
 My apologies for having to bring this to your attention, also if this happens to be making a mountain out of a molehill, but there are a couple of users who have made it a habit out of hyperbolically testing my patience for verbal abuse. I am already going through a bit of a rough patch right now, and although User:MrX has already simmered down a bit, User:Jennica has brought up some sort of old grudge that I didn't even know existed and taken it upon herself to spill her guts on various talk pages. I would like this to stop if you don't mind. I am already quite exhausted IRL. I really don't need havoc in my online life as well. Again, sorry to intrude, but I could use your help. Thank you for your patience. Much obliged, even if you decide to pass on this or delegate it to somebody else. Thank you anyway. Best regards. Blast Vortex (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why you contacted me. Do I know anything about this issue? It isn't ringing a bell. I will try to look into it if you can give me more context. I can't do it right away as I'm in the middle of a project.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I literally have no idea what Blast Vortex is accusing me of but it needs to stop. He hasn't came to my talk page to inform me of what I did or to try to resolve whatever issue he has. This is the second talk page he's posted about me. --Jennica ✿ / talk 09:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was under the impression that if issues went unresolved I needed to bark a little further up the flagpole. Perhaps I jumped the gun, and for that I'm sorry. Anyway, despite apparent hostility toward me and the obvious fact that I can't talk to these people directly, you're clearly very busy, and I was out of line and don't want to be a bother, so I'll just seek other help. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks anyway. Best regards. Blast Vortex (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd-century establishments in England
I recently created this category. This was a mistake which I made because I don't normally edit about Roman Britain. I see you previously deleted a category with this name.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ?? are you requesting deletion?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes please.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)