User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 83

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Shaun White Snowboarding
Hello, just to let you know, it seems you deleted the revision of my removal of the copyvio, rather than the IPs addition. Thanks –72 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, correct. Fixed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and on the topic of copyvios, would you be able to take a look at revisions Special:Diff/792567463–Special:Diff/801408086 of the page Rolls-Royce Sweptail? I believe this is a direct copy of . Earwig's detector doesn't seem to work on the link, but a manual "Ctrl/Cmd + F" of each paragraph of the wiki article and the external link show a direct copy (except for the very first sentence). Thanks –72 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. (I didn't notice you provided a link, I found the same site.) S Philbrick (Talk)  14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

2011-12 WBB Rankings
I didn't create the 2011-12 WBB Rankings page. That page was created by OC Native back on October 31, 2011. The only thing I did was go in and place the weekly date the rankings came out on and changed it to be women's basketball rankings as it was previously just down as basketball rankings, which makes it men's rankings instead of women's rankings. Like you I haven't had the time to do much of anything, and I don't know that I will. If you have an easier way to do it, feel free to do so. I hadn't even been on the rankings page there since the day I filled in the preseason rankings and changed it to be a women's rankings set instead of men's. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I must have misread the history. I'll drop in week by week ratings, and if someone else wants to do the color coded stuff, they can.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Eehllogo.jpg
Hi Sphilbrick. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at File:Eehllogo.jpg? It appears that someone tried to overwrite the file with a completely unrelated image. The "new" version might be OK uploaded separately as a non-free album cover, but it's completely unrelated to the older version of the file. This was probably just a new editor not familiar with uploading files, but I can't revert back to the older version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I reverted to the earlier image and left a note for the uploader-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The logo is of course not PD-self. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems unlikely. I had noticed an FUR, but that was associated with the more recent image not the original image. Unfortunately, the upload or has not edited in a year. I don't care to take the time to research where it might've come from and make up a FUR. Does that leave us any option other than deletion?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As the file has an obviously incorrect copyright tag, it qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:F9. However, if the file would qualify for inclusion under WP:NFCC on at least one page, I tend to prefer to tag it as missing evidence of permission or listing it for discussion in case someone wants to fix the file. For example, User:Salavat fixes many incorrectly tagged non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking on this Sphilbrick. The album cover is still showing up as an old revision, but I'm not sure if furd would work in this case. It apppears to have also been uploaded as File:Ragatanga150x150.jpg, so two of the same non-free album cover are not needed. As for the "PD-self" logo, I agree with, but I have been unable to find a proper source to determine whether this logo was even ever used as claimed. There is a Russian Wikipedia article about the league which uses the same logo as ru:Файл:Vehl logo.png and an Ukrainian Wikipedia article which uses uk:Файл:Vehl.jpg. Both give http://hockeyus.at.tut.by/image/vehl.jpg as their source, but that url has been overwritten. I think that file might need to be deleted if we cannot verify a proper source for it. FWIW, the uploader of the file does not appear to have edited in more than a year, so not sure how much asking them to clarify will help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we can't tell if it's the correct logo or not, I listed it for discussion at Files for discussion/2017 October 6. It seems that fact works on the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, so I added that tag to those projects. I'm not sure how or if we should inform those projects of this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim (James) Boyer
Hi Sphilbrick. I believe you recently deleted Jim (James) Boyer's page that was in my sandbox...Could you please put it back up so I can make the changes necessary so it can be added? I just have not had the time to do it, but I will be working on it shortly. I hate to have to rewrite all of his credits. He was producer Phil Ramone's engineer for many years as well as a producer in his own right and does deserve a page on Wikipedia. I just need more time to get it finished. Thank you Dmileson (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked through my last 500 deletions, but did not find it. Do you remember the exact name? Unfortunately, I am running out now for an all day event, so cannot attend to it until this evening, although if you identify the name, any tps is authorized to restore it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you check the user's talk page? At the bottom, there's a notification template, db-afc-notice, telling that User:Dmileson/sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion, and the page seems to have been deleted by you. Is this the correct page? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Duh, I did not. I looked at what links here, or started to, then realized it wouldn't list deleted pages. I then looked at my recent deletions, and searched for "Boyer". You approach was smarter. And now I really have to run.
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Dmileson (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Brabble
Hi I noticed your question to Kudpung about Brabble. I'm not responding there because Kudpung has retired from NPP, AFAIK. I've started a NPP review of the article. The creator almost certainly has a conflict of interest. I suspect they have been paid to write it. He refers to himself bramble on commons and shows clear signs of paid editing in other articles that he started. I'm also pretty sure that the office foto is a copyvio (I'm still looking into that). Here's what I think may be going on: The urgency for the review stems from the fact that google won't index the page. The app scheduled to go live in October 2017, so the client is understandably getting impatient. It is also quite possible the editor won't get paid until the article shows up as a result on google. Feel free to let them know that the review of the article will soon be completed and that it will probably be nominated for speedy deletion, perhaps PRODed, and that it will almost certainly be sent to AfD in it doesn't meet any of the criteria for CSD or PROD. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and research.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For my records: 2017100910009951-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for all the help and communication regarding this page! Ralum23 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback
23:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
@ Sphilbrick, Thanks for the advice about en dashes. I don't work with computer coding (actually I don't work with computers or programming at all) so it takes me a while to figure out these things! Foreignshore (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. I'm sure you know that in many places hyphens are used all the time, but Wikipedia likes to use en-dashes in many places.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS..
Recently, I came across ticket:2017062710013134 from Talk:Raheja Developers and wished to view the ticket courtesy having some personal interest about the topic.(I actually got the t/p protection enabled...).But it shows:--We are sorry, you do not have permissions anymore to access this ticket in its current state.Any ideas?Is it rel. to some specific queue; I am not subscribed to?Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It took me a couple minutes but I figured it out. It got transferred to a chapter queue. I'm guessing you don't have access to that so your guess is correct. The current owner is ; I'm guessing you know that editor? My suggestion is to start with him. I didn't look at the entire ticket, but based on the last entry, I'll guess he will certainly be happy to have you take it over so either he can move it someplace that you can access it or if he gives me permission I'll do it.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixing Ping - -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! :) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know your OTRS name, so I transfered this to Sphilbrick. This particular case has probably 50+ wiki volunteers involved. This is the most vocal client I have ever encountered. I advise no wikicommunity interaction with the client and referrals to WMF legal for all needs. Over the past few years it seems that wiki community members have no ideas for satisfying the client and their legal issues.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to jokingly respond to Winged... that "Thanks" might be premature - but that doesn't appear to be a joke. I think you can now see the ticket, but I urge you to take Blue's counsel seriously.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very serious matter. If you could go through the oversighted posts on the article t/p, you will see their seriousness at all fronts and probably form something of a similar impression. And, it goes wthout saying that I will be more than careful enough, to the point of transferring the ticket right back to you, if it doesn't suit me! And, weren't they vocal enough, we wouldn't have been forced to execute one of the rarest actions under protection policy i.e locking an article t/p. But, the problem remains that, I am still unable to view the ticket.Same message as before!Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Any ideas? Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried changing the owner to you, but it didn't work. Not yet sure why.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have written to the OTRS admin mailing list to discuss next steps.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in the issue:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am at hand but I do not know how to transfer further. If anyone learns and can teach then I would like to hear the solution.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Byron Katie
Oops, was typing too fast. Thanks for letting me know. Trivialist (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI
Re: Help desk. If it doesn't require non-public information, it's probably better to point people to WP:FFU rather than OTRS. Me and at least one other user have been pretty good about keeping FFU down to a near zero backlog, and most logos are an exercise in TOO anyway. G M G talk   12:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good to know as an option. Frankly I haven't paid much attention to FFU, but glancing at it see that there are quite a few files being handled. Kudos. While there is an OTRS backlog, request for logos are typically handled quickly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just gave someone two options, one of which was FFU - see 2017083110025155. I hope I interpreted your response correctly, that if someone asked at FFU and it qualifies as TOO you will still help.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, never mind. I saw that ticket at the top of the queue but not sure why it was there because you had already responded.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, crap. You can follow up with that second email if you want. I'm relegated to mobile till tonight at the earliest. I don't guess you're a sysop on Commons are you?  G M G  talk   15:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I am. But I'm not catching what you mean by "that second email".-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, but I'm juggling too many things, including a contested deletion at Commons.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2017101310007856 Sorry. I forget there's no contribution history.  G M G  talk   15:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I just took on a ticket that is going to take multiple hours to address, and I'm already in a bit of hot water for a close call Commons deletion so I'm going to have to pass on this one at the moment.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll get to it sure enough.  G M G  talk   15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion
Hello Sphilbrick: I noticed on Sept. 19 that you had deleted a draft from my Sandbox page. It is fine. I no longer need it. CH2017.Ch2017 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Got it. Thanks, that was a helpful restoration.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. Glad to see I've made an editor happy with one of my edits. Trigonometria87   speak  17:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Recreation of categories
Hi, just to let you know that a bunch of categories that you deleted on 2 March 2015, all titled Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to (name of African country), have been recreated, basically for each of the various countries that Germán Santa María Barragán is non-resident ambassador to (see the last line of the "Ambassadorship" section in his article). He's the only member of each category – I don't know if the previously deleted categories had any differences to the recreated ones. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I almost never delete categories except in the case of empty categories so I'm almost certain that those were empty when I deleted them (recognizing this was 2 1/2 years ago so I don't have an active recollection of the deletion).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I don't have a problem with them existing if they have at least one member of the category – just thought I should mention it in case there had been a very good reason for their original deletion. And yes, I can well imagine you don't remember every one of your thousands of edits... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you + invitation
Thanks -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

FLQ Manifesto
Why do you think the FLQ Manifesto is copyright protected? The authors of the article relinquished their copyright, they want the Manifesto published. In fact, they kidnapped a diplomat to get it published and the then prime minister P.E. Trudeau allowed it to be published and aired on radio. IQ125 (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything written recently is copyrighted. There's really no such concept as relinquishing a copyright, our copyright holders are free to license their work in many ways and released to the public domain, which might be characterized as relinquishing the copyright, but we need evidence that this happened. I didn't see it, perhaps I missed it but it needs to be clearly identified.


 * The second issue is that we do not automatically include material Wikipedia simply because it is acceptably licensed. We need an encyclopedic reason for including anything. It is far from obvious that a manifesto belongs in encyclopedia. There may well be good reasons for discussing the circumstances surrounding the manifesto and making some summarized mention of it but inclusion of an entire manifesto doesn't sound like an appropriate encyclopedic edit. (Did you consider wikisource?) In other words, if you can track down evidence of the material is appropriately licensed, it seems unlikely it ought to be included in full. That second point is obviously not a copyright issue, but it is an editorial issue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Place it in WikiSource and link it to the article. IQ125 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to see if it makes sense for Wikisource. I don't work with that project, and don't know if is it suitable. I also don't know the copyright status. You've suggested it might be acceptably licensed but I haven't seen that evidence-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Emailed
Hi, Sphilbrick! I've emailed you. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. Will try to respond tomorrow.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversy
Hi, you reverted my edit to Gata Kamsky. where in the comment you mentioned a copyright issue. However, I suspect that the site you are referring to (this site) has copied its article form wikipedia. This would mean that I am not the one who could be violating copyrights. Second remark: my addition contained an external source for the contents of addition. Bob.v.R (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That could very well be the case. That site does assert copyright content but that's not always a valid indicator.


 * However, if the text you added is copied from Wikipedia, while that is acceptable it has to be done in a certain way to preserve attribution. Please see Copying_within_Wikipedia For how this should be done. Feel free to add the material again with the link to the source article in the edit summary.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The added text was copied (by me) from the article Gastón Needleman, with some minor changes from my side. Bob.v.R (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

AIS auto insurance specialists
Hi, you said it's abysmal. I'd like to know how so because I am not seeing the distinction between that any other pages on Wiki, which is a resource I use all the time before I make decisions. Abysmal doesn't help me see the problem (obviously, I wrote it). I don't mind the bluntness just the lack of clarification Afarin Majidi (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't, and that does make me feel bad. I'll look at it again, and provide a couple comments.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You said blunt's okay. I'll start out with a strong comment but aimed at Wikipedia not at you. I think we do a disservice to new editors by permitting them to work on new articles with virtually no editing experience. It is harder than people realize. We do give some advice that people should start with edits to other articles 1st but I think we should be much stronger regarding that advice. If I were king, I would consider requiring that editors have maybe a few hundred edits before they are permitted to create a new article.

Now back to you.

One of my pet peeves is people who want to contribute to, well, almost anything — it could be an article for a magazine, it could be help for a volunteer organization, or could be an article for an encyclopedia, who don't show any evidence they've taken a few minutes to look around and see what that magazine or organization or encyclopedia typically does. It is beyond comprehension that you aren't generally familiar with Wikipedia articles but your draft doesn't show it. Let's take Mercury insurance group, which doesn't strike me as a great article. Even that article follows our canonical standard of identifying the subject early in the lead with the title repeated in the lead in bold. While there might be some exceptions, out of our over 5 million articles I will bet that at least 5 million do that. You didn't.

You didn't start with the subject to the article. I will cut you some slack as I think you were attempting to start with material that belonged in in INFOBOX but it doesn't look at all like an INFOBOX and you should have been asking why it didn't look like an INFOBOX before trying to submit it.

I don't want you to look at Mercury too much because it's not a great article. If you want to look at another article as a model, look at our Good articles. I'm slightly surprised there don't seem to be any about insurance companies, so I'll pick one that at least is an article about a company: Reynolds and Reynolds.

Note that it like almost all other articles, has a mention of the title in the lead section in bold, unlike yours.

Note that the article includes many references — while you have included multiple references, the Reynolds article doesn't have any that are bare URLs. Most of your references are bare URLs.

While bare URLs are a minor problem, they can be fixed for references, we don't want external links in the text as you have done with the link to "subsidiary of Mercury Casualty Company" This would've been a good place to do a wiki link to the redirect "Mercury casualty company".

You have a reference section but those aren't references they are a collection of bare URLs.

(I haven't checked to see if there simply a duplication of the ones you have tried to use as references.)

Creating references used to be difficult, and many new editors struggled. It is now exceedingly easy although you do have to know a couple steps. When you are in edit mode, making sure you are in the visual editor not in the media wiki editor (ask if you don't know the difference) you can click on "cite", drop in the URL and it will create a reference for you over 90% of the time.

However most of my comments so far are formatting type issues. That could be easily resolved but in my opinion the results thing article still comes across as advertising she'll rather than an encyclopedia but the failure to even do basic formatting is troubling.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Your note
About this - KDS444 started doing this activity without understanding a) the policies and guidelines around it; b) what it meant (both to his own editing and to his reputation) or c) the range of views on it in the editing community. All of his upset is based on those lacks of understanding.  You are further confusing the guy.

If you "can't believe" that I am trying to help, then you need to reconsider.... a lot of things. And if you don't understand that the kind of commercial paid editing he is doing, is marginal activity that exploits WP and the editing community that is hated by some people, then you really should not be discussing these issues at all.

I suggest you remove your post of put your post elsewhere (you can move/remove my reply as well). If after consideration you still want to have the conversation, you can put it on my talk page if you like. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your response makes it clear that you failed to follow my point. Your opening sentence contains a number of points with which I fully agree. The fact that you are making them means you don't understand my point.


 * Upon rereading my post, the only thing I'd change is that while I think early on you provided some useful advice, one of my issues is the piling on. When I questioned whether you think you are providing useful advice, I didn't mean the first time you said it, or the second, or the third but the 20th and subsequent times (no I didn't count and I might be exaggerating but it feels that way). I did make the point of saying your post contains some useful advice, so the only thing I'd change is to clarify that it's the repetition that is one of the problems, not the content itself. If you want me to change that, I will but I stand by my post. You aren't helping.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those comments, placed there, are profoundly unhelpful. Again, please move or remove them. If you are only willing to edit them to mitigate the damage, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "profoundly unhelpful"? Why should they be moved or removed? (I understand the answer to the first may answer the second.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlike a bunch of people who have been weighing in on this, I have been listening very carefully to KDS444 from the time this whole thing started. Listening to what he is saying, what he is paying attention to, what he is not hearing, and how well he is tracking everything.
 * What you and a bunch of other people have been failing to understand, is that he does not actually time to read the things that people to write to him nor to understand them by thinking about them afterwards. He ignores a bunch of it, pulls out one thing he kind of catches, and responds to it somewhere else.  He has done this many times.
 * He is very unlikely to have read much if any of the sprawl on the Paid contribution Talk page. (so no, there is not likely any "beating a dead horse" with regard to him.)
 * His OP there was a shout -- not dialogical. Like many of things he does - symbolic acts of protest.  Like restoring his userpage to its pre disclosure days.  Like posting that he edits for the Romanovs.  Like a bunch of other small things.
 * I posted on his talk page to try to help him focus on the issues.
 * What he is very likely to do, is focus solely on your remark "and I can't believe you honestly think that you are providing useful and helpful advice"
 * Profoundly destructive. Even if you edit that away, it is still there in the history.
 * And if you were paying attention to to him or what i have written, he is failing to understand that he stumbled into very negatively-valenced activity in WP, and yet all he can do is be aghast that some people are reacting negatively to him. And he doesn't understand that his paid edits being scrutinized is normal and appropriate (he seems to think his paid editing is just like his normal editing and should be treated the exact same way).  Your denying of the reality of what paid editing is in the community, just further confuses everything for him.  I do believe you were trying to be helpful but what you actually did was destructive as hell. With regard to him. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comment that you didn't understand my point. The irony is that you think my comment was unhelpful, even as I am trying to tell you that your comment is quite unhelpful. There's also more going on that you don't know about, and because of confidentiality, I cannot share, but you are making a bad situation worse. You are trying to tell me things in the mistaken notion you think I am unaware of them. You claim I'm failing to understand something but you are simply wrong. I don't disagree that the editor shows little evidence of taking on board the good advice given. You fail to understand that the best way to remedy that is not endless repetition.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my response to Kudpung I open to hearing that in your view is enough is enough -- what you did and how you did it, was very bad judgement and that is what I am here telling you. You can hear that or not. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The entire issue is mainly my fault for having unwittingly brought  to  light the fact  that  the user in question is not only a paid editor but also a holder of advanced rights, including, oddly, OTRS, none of which  and I find compatible with paid editing. Jyt works hard on COIN related problems and has been trying to help KDS understand how he might have misinterpreted the intention of the paid editor declaration scheme. I rather feel I may have egged him on in this respect, but I do agree that it's time to relax a bit on KDS and concentrate our research for paid spam elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your note on my talk page was fine and I appreciate your input. Thanks again for it. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share the comments of any one else but I can share that I am contributing to a discussion about the editor's status as an OTRS agent. I anticipate a resolution soon.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 24, August-September 2017

 Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta! Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
 * Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
 * Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
 * Bytes in brief

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging