User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 60

A kitten for you!

I hope you're having a rapid recovery from your surgery.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am, it went well. I haven't forgotten you, but I haven't gotten to it yet.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I responded, we'll see what happens. I hope you will look at my comment and perhaps you can fill me in on a gap in my knowledge. Why is it that red-link articles are acceptable (within limits) but not red-link categories? Is it considered acceptable to create a new category that has only one item minute or is one expected to do so only one is more than one?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sp, I answered you over at the editor's talk page. What ever we say, he apparently doesn't want to listen. He just added back the same category redlink again[1].

Let's start with AGF. I noticed the editor almost never edits their own talk page, which highly suggests that they ignore it. I don't make this observation to suggest that it is okay to ignore it just that it may not be a case of specifically ignoring you, but rather not paying attention to their talk page. I think of block as a crude way of getting their attention so let me try some of the things first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you and I are going to play good cop bad cop. LOL, I'll follow your lead. I was about to start an SPI but will put it on hold....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped they had email enabled, but alas.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI he edited unsigned in last night through his IP. No redlink category edits however though he had done it previously here[2] after I had removed a category. That's why we know its his unsigned in editing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've never worked on is SPI investigations. I looked into it briefly but decided that with all the things that I need to learn, that one didn't make the top of my list. I'm mentioning this because you are convinced this is a previously banned user. You may be correct but that's not something I will pursue.

You saw my exchange with JohnCD. The editor is on my watchlist but my watchlist is slightly out-of-control, so I will guarantee that I will see his edits promptly. If you notice another example of adding a red light category let me know I'll provide one more strongly worded message and if that doesn't work of follow that with a block. Thanks for your diligence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He's back doing it again. Click here[3], here[4] and here[5] for the original posts. I am going to delete the links right after I send this post.

As for SPIs and sockpuppets, I know I only started a new investigation once or twice and its been a while since the last one. All were connected with Ryan kirkpatrick, who's had over 100 confirmed sockpuppet accounts. (And he's usually easy to detect. Ryan's written English is poor and his new socks almost always make their first edit a new aviation accident article.) When I discovered a new one I'd usually inform one of either two admins, MilborneOne or The Bushranger, both of whom are experts when it came to Ryan. I'll only start the SPI unless Lewis continues his behavior beyond a block. If you say for me not to do the SPI or delay, I'll respect your wishes. Will give you a heads up before going to that stage. I'll keep monitoring in the mean time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not in a position to tell you that you cannot start an SPI. I'm emphasizing my lack of knowledge because I want to be responsive to your issues and I want to explain to you very clearly that if I do not react to your SPI comments it is simply because I am not qualified to contribute something useful.

As promised, I left a final warning. I frankly don't expect it to work, but I said I would do it, and I want the record to show that I've tried everything I can think of to avoid having to block. If you see another example, let me know and I'll block and maybe they'll finally respond.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As usual, you're taking a good approach to things. I agree with your handling of Lewis. Take care and I'll stay in touch....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He did it again[6]. FYI, I'm taking the category out....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I pinged you. Lewis is doing it again. I ignored the first time he did it (late last night) because he may have just forgotten but he did it again three more times this afternoon....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I sent you an email.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

venting <g>

[7] shows some of the problems which infest Wikipedia - Track my spoor as I fear I am becoming a teeny bit impatient with some of these folks, indeed. Heck, when I found an editor who committed blatant plagiarism (who seems to have a strong enmity towards me though I held none towards him)), I was kind enough not to make a big deal of it - but now I am becoming entirely too sure that perhaps I well ought to get evidence prepared for some of these gentlepersons. Forgive me this vent, please. Collect (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Easily forgiven. If it wasn't obvious, my recent post to you was partially a legitimate question, but partially a vent. (I didn't act on it, because the material I asked about was removed by someone else.) I'm reading a book, which has good advice. It isn't new, but sometimes it is good to hear it again. Don't get mad, that's what they would like. I think you try to follow that, and I try, but sometimes I have to walk away from discussions. There aren't enough editors who care about BLP the way you do (and I'm sorry to say that I can't count myself among them, at least in terms of actively following the relevant noticeboards) so this place would be much poorer if you lose it and get shut down.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem is - some of these selfsame gentlepersons are the very ones whose uncontested (and not even permitted to be contested - I was told I had already exceeded the limits for "evidence" at the case, and some even sought to have my "evidence" removed!) "evidence" against me is what led to ArbCom officially saying that I was a poor judge of WP:BLP and not even permitted to revert on the basis of that policy (sigh). In a sense, I am already shut down by "anonymous IPs" who haunt my every edit, and by some others who magically appear wheresoever I appear (Ruth 1:16). Again - many thanks. I will try to avoid getting upset when a gentleperson tells me to post in a discussion I had actually started <g>. Collect (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Shannon Burke (writer)

Just FYI - I have restored this draft which you (quite reasonably) deleted G13 a few hours ago. This is one of those tangled histories: it was G13-ed in September, the author created a new version and then made an undeletion request at REFUND. I restored the old version, did a history merge, and told them they could find the old version in the history. So what did they do but copy the old version over the new one, complete with its G13 tag. Sigh... JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As you probably know we get dozens of G13s every day, and I usually try to give them a brief review, but I only go into a deeper review on the spot check basis because in almost all cases, they are valid. I didn't think about the fact they might accidentally "keep" the G 13 tag, although I did something along the same line — someone complained about a deletion. I decided the deletion was not valid and restored it, but failed to remove the CSD tag, so it got deleted a few minutes later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A new source of confusion when restoring G13s has appeared: the restored page usually has a G13 tag on it which has to be deleted. Recently it sometimes doesn't have a G13 tag, which means it has been deleted by somebody working through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions without waiting for tags. The problem is that the restored page is still in that category, and so liable to be swiftly re-deleted. It needs a dummy edit to reset its six-month clock and remove it from the category. See discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. I'm not quite sure it has fully sunk in but I'm happy to be aware of the issue, as I am likely to run into it. As an aside, I had a brief exchange with some admin's who were restoring articles I deleted and felt it was not necessary to contact me. This is a perfect example of why that communication is helpful — you were alerting me to an issue I had not been aware of, and would be unlikely to know about if you hadn't contacted me. I wish I could say that will prevent me from making the same mistake next time, but I'm concerned I don't see an easy way of identifying it. Of course, if the article looks like it's in decent shape that ought to be a red flag, but the specific case cited is not exactly much of an article. I hope the discussions you linked will lead to appropriate processes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Newark airport

With regard to Newark Liberty International Airport Station: yes would to change spelling.Djflem (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Djflem: It isn't obvious to me what the right choice is.

• The first reference uses Newark Liberty International Airport station
• This site uses Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station
• This reference uses Newark-Liberty International Airport Rail Station

The template you used is for noncontroversial moves. I think it would be best to open up a discussion at the article talk page and get a consensus on the name.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Two of the above are blogs. The three agencies, including the one that originally built and named it, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New Jersey Transit( NJY) and Amtrak all refer to the "Station".

• PANYNJ :Newark Liberty International Airport Station "To and From Newark". panynj.gov. Retrieved 13 November 2015.
• NJT :Newark International Airport Station "Newark Airport". njtransit.com. Retrieved 13 November 2015.
• Amtrak: Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station "Newark Liberty International Airport, NJ Train Station (EWR) - Amtrak". amtrak.com. Retrieved 13 November 2015.

This would seem an uncontroversial moved based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions for US stations and Verifiability. It seems redundant to include (also known as Newark International Airport Station and Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station) in body of article.19:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The first reference is a dead link, your second and third references use a different name than the current title. Which means I count zero sites using your suggested name. You may well be right but I'm not about to make a change to a name and call it uncontroversial when I haven't yet seen a single example.

As I said before and you've simply added confirmation, the seem to be several variations of the spelling of the station name. That's a good reason for posing a question in getting feedback on an article talk page. This page isn't the right place to carry out that discussion. If you are convinced that I am misreading this and think it is still uncontroversial, go ahead and reinstate the template with the desired move and perhaps someone else will take care of it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. For good order I've corrected link. Djflem (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

KF Defence Programs <— Allied Wings

Here you said "Article redirected to non-infringing article."

Unfortunately the redirect is a cut-and-paste move from Allied Wings to KF Defence Programs. Could you possibly hist-merge the articles?

Many thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: My only involvement was as part of my review of copyright problems. When I looked into it it look like someone had cured the problem by creating a redirect. My edit simply acknowledge that. I wasn't the editor who created the redirect or edited either article, so my only involvement is my observation that it's not a copyright problem. I think I did history merge once years ago, but it's not something I do regularly. I understand it's not all that difficult but it is a little tricky and I don't feel comfortable trying to figure out how to do it in this case. I looked briefly at the history of both articles and frankly don't quite follow what happened. I'm sure I could figure it out but I don't think I'm the best person to attempt this. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's pretty easy, as I remember (compared with balancing an investment portfolio), but I'll ask at A/NI. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC).

Actually, I spent a number of years helping clients with optimization of portfolios, so that is like falling off a log :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! (I was trawling through some archives so I knew that.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

Oh duh - I see. Thanks for remembering.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States Capitol cornerstone laying

Sphilbrick, when I requested that the Talk:United States Capitol cornerstone laying/GA1 GA review page be deleted because of an illegitimate reviewer, I didn't expect you also to delete the article's talk page above it, which is very much still needed. Can you please restore the article talk page, while leaving the GA review page deleted? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Restored. I'm puzzled, because what I deleted, looked vandalized. (for what it is worth, both had a csd template)--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It's odd that the regular talk page had a csd template, since I only put one on the GA1 page, and I'm pretty sure those aren't supposed to propagate upward. I've done what needs to be done to the article talk page so the GA nominee template is restored to its state before the vandal created the review page, and the review transclusion (which is added by the bot when a review is begun) has been deleted. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't promise this for other WBB pages but...

I'm kinda proud of my work at Chattanooga Lady Mocs basketball. They are the little engines that could. As Coach Foster stated "I like the fact that we don't have the support structure that a lot of the big BCS schools have ... I think it's a little bit more challenging and in a lot of respects a lot more fun to coach when you're involved a little bit more with the student-athlete." I can't promise this type of work for other WBB teams, but it's a start and hopefully a good foundation for others to use. — Wyliepedia 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Deservedly so. Very nice work. I'm not used to seeing the yearly record table broken out like that but you did it very nicely with a nice summary of each coach.

I'm a fan of Jim Foster although we've never met. I'm happy to see him doing well at Chattanooga. I had forgotten that Sharon Fanning spent so many years there. I have met her but I still think of her in terms of Mississippi State.

The one thing that jumps out is the change of name from Tennessee – Chattanooga to just Chattanooga in 1996. I looked at the article on the school University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and it doesn't seem to mention it. My guess is that the article on the school is tracking the legal names, and the official name is still University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Still, if our naming is correct, it suggests that the school decided in 1996 to change the branding from Tennessee–Chattanooga to Chattanooga. I doubt I will be the only one who notices this and wonders about the change so if you could find anything on that it would be a nice addition. However I'm picking nits in what is one of the better team articles I've seen. Kudos, and I look forward to seeing more of your work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is the UTC win/loss record which denotes the 1996 name change. I'll look to see if it's better sourced or explained anywhere else. — Wyliepedia 21:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can come close it is when UTC "rebranded" to be more PC regarding the Moccasins nickname. — Wyliepedia 21:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

On the specific question of the link, I agree it would be nice to have something better, but that seems adequate to me. However I am puzzled that your link brought me to the Chattanooga page. When I look at URL it looks like a generic URL. If I start at: this link my usual starting spot, I can search for Duke and women's basketball, then click on Duke, and then click on "View Duke's Year-By-Year W/L Record" and I arrive at: this page which seems to have the identical URL. That never surprised me before as I assume that the URL wouldn't point to a specific school, but when I clicked on your link I went to the Chattanooga page. When you click on my link does it go to the Duke page? If so how does it know?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Yes, at the web1.ncaa.org site (my first link) you have to manually search for the school or coach. I think it's because it's an HTML site? But when you click on a more recent season for a team, you have the ability to then get a breakdown of coaches with notes out from that. For example, on Chattanooga's it has "First Year of Varsity Competition" out from 1974-75 and "School Name Change from Tennessee-Chattanooga" out from 1996-97. I failed to notice any added direction from the url. My second link is a UTC about the nickname. — Wyliepedia 00:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I clicked on a link and went directly to the Chattanooga page, which surprised me, but it doesn't do that now, so maybe I'm hallucinating.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

gomocs.com. web1.ncaa. — Wyliepedia 05:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Improper" deletions :)

Yesterday you deleted redirects Inappropriateness, Properly, Properness and Improperness. I've mentioned them in a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Appropriateness of which you may have been unaware, because I doubt these were tagged with {{rfd}}; anyway, these weren't listed there when you deleted them.

They were deleted as WP:R3 recently created, but I doubt that. Were they really? I imagine they were created – or retargeted – by User:Neelix some time ago. I am not an admin so I can't check. Could you confirm or deny that? I might ask for them to be restored, as it may be appropriate (ahem) to retarget them, but there's no point restoring them just to delete them once again.

Sorry to cause you work here. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: As you are probably aware, many of the 80,000 or so redirects created by Neelix have been viewed as inappropriate, and a number of editors are undertaking to clean out some of the more egregious items. It is hardly surprising, when viewing such a large number of entries, many of which should not have been created, the identification of those to be removed might overreach on occasion. For example, improprieties was on the list requested to be deleted, and I felt this word was common enough, and likely enough to be used as a search term that it ought not to be removed. I feel differently about the four listed here. Three are obscure if not archaic. I don't think it is likely that someone interested in the article morality is going to search for by typing in "properly". However, redirects are cheap, and I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing it. If you think that word or any of the four are truly plausible search terms, I would have no problem if you re-created them. I'll emphasize that's a personal view, and I can respect the reactions of some editors who might feel otherwise.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, I am aware! Knowing that they are Neelix redirects is enough for now. Your (and other admins) have to make tough calls with these, and it is kinda unseen except when one does hit one of these redlinks, so as a reg at RfD may I thank you (and other admins) for making those calls rathern than flooding it.

Partly what prompted me to look a little farther was that Improperly exists but not Properly, but there's no point restoring it until we decide what to do with that. Personally I don't think "morality" is the right target, but something else might be. Si Trew (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew:I am slightly embarrassed to note that your question about timing forced me to look at the actual wording of R3, and I confess that I had not taken on board the fact that the word "recently" was in there. I have deleted quite a few of these over the years, and I don't recall ever checking the date, but I believe in most cases they were caught shortly after being created. However, in many cases they were either quite absurd, or a misunderstanding (alternative capitalizations which are not needed).I wasn't around when this was written so it is my speculation that someone concluded if a redirect has been around for quite some time it ought to go through a different process. I can sympathize with that thinking, but I hope we are in agreement this is a bit of a special situation, and it would be a tremendous waste of resources to create a discussion about each and every one. Frankly, if it were my call, I might've considered a mass reversion of every single one, on the argument that if a handful are truly useful they will be quickly and easily re-created. That isn't how were doing it but I mentioned this just as an argument that if we slightly over reach and delete something we shouldn't, it is easier to re-create it than to debate it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That argument, for mass reversion, has indeed been made. What is happening is kinda a compromise, that they are being listed in batches, and admins are deleting ones that they feel are incontrovertibly wrong (e.g. mangled English). In listing in batches, we're at the stage when we are at least getting them with links to stats, history and so on, but still quite often the {{rfd}} note is not on the page itself. Hey-ho, we can't burden either the mass lister nor RfD too much.

Any count of how many remain from the infamous "Neelix list"? I don't know how often it is regenerated. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That I don't have an answer to.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan women's cricket team in Australia in 2014

Hi, the above mentioned page was deleted. I request you to undo the delete, as it was a part of

srini (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Srinivasprabhu933: It could use some work. Assuming the template is accurate, it documents some aspect of something significant, but that sure wasn't obvious when I read the article. It reads as if the team decided to visit someplace else and play a few games. I think it was a legitimate nomination for deletion, but I do not know enough about the structure of cricket matches to form a strong opinion so I'll restore the article, leave it to more knowledgeable people to review, but reiterate that the article needs work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for restoring the article. As you said a lot of work is to be done on this article and I look forward to do it as soon as possible.srini (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

CsD A7

I;ve reverted some of your speedies , which were A7s where more was involved that it looked at first glance, on the basis of discussion at ANI here. I'd have notified you immediately the discussion was started except I didn't immediately see these particular articles having been deleted. I'm not imply in the least that there was anything at all wrong with what you did--I probably would have done just the same as you, except I saw the ANI discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I was planning to revert them myself once I got the expected confirmation that these should be saved, but it looks like you beat me to the restoration. I found a couple that hadn't quite been cleaned up and cleaned them up, but between you and hullabaloo, it looks like they've been rescued. Thanks for your very prompt response to my question at ANI. I wonder if we should consider modifying G7. I think it's perfectly appropriate for user space drafts, and maybe even from mainspace if an editor reconsiders minutes after creation (maybe) but in the case of articles that have been around for a few months and viewed by others? Why would we allow their deletion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Allude Entertainment deletion

Hi there!

Just trying to figure out exactly why the article was deleted. It is about a local Vancouver film production company (similar to BRON Studios or Paperny Films), and there are a number of news articles to support this information. I believe it is notable because they have been doing a lot of interesting work in the industry and are an award-winning production company. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated! Thanks!

@TinyZee27: I may have been a little quick on the trigger. When I first looked I didn't see any proper references; the reference section has some raw links, but I now see there are some references they just are not organized very well. It is still exceedingly weak, so I urge additional work quickly to ensure that someone else doesn't reach a different conclusion. The first item in the reference section is a blog which is generally not acceptable as a reliable source. I see a couple wire service links which are generally okay to establish facts but generally quite weak when it comes to supporting notability. There appears to be a link to the Calgary Sun which should be a solid source although it doesn't seem to open for me. I reversed the deletion but I'm not even going to tell the editor that their recommendation for deletion was wrong. It's a close call.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't pretend to know much about the industry, so I had no idea whether "Leo awards" were meaningful. As you know the entertainment industry is replete with awards some of which are quite marginal. I see that there is an article about the award so I wikilinked the term which should help. A little more emphasis on the past results will go a long way. Wikipedia is generally uninterested in discussion of upcoming items such as the discussion of the shooting of the new feature film. It may well be a big deal in the minds of the company but an encyclopedia, by its very nature talks about what's happened in the past not about plans for the future. Literally every day we delete hundreds of articles which someone has created to help the marketing of some upcoming event. That's not what we do. Emphasize what the company has done, not what it plans to do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks a ton for your help with this! I'll be sure to add some more reputable references. If you have any tips on the best way to organize external links and whatnot that would rock (although I know there's a lot of information about that in the help pages so I'll go digging :) cheers!

File:AlbertFolch .jpg

Hi Sphibrick. Can you check File:AlbertFolch .jpg and see if there's an OTRS ticket or something. It's the same file as File:AlbertFolch2.jpg which was deleted by Explicit on November 3 per WP:F11. The uploader Rogerfpurcell is now claiming that they are the copyright holder despite previously claiming that Albert Folch Folch was the copyright holder at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#File: AlbertFolch2.jpg should not be deleted! Please stop tagging it, Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#Wikipedia disconnect leaves editors defenseless and other places. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I am no longer doing OTRS Commons permissions work. If I were I'm not sure that I would take this on. As the various links show, I've already invested quite a bit of time trying to research this. In short, the permission at this site is not adequate for me (maybe some other agent will accept it). It is our job to try to be helpful but I think there are limits. If the uploader cannot arrange for the copyright holder to provide permission, I don't think we need to keep chasing our tails. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't realize you were no longer at OTRS. I thought about bringing it up again at OTRSN, but it has been discussed there before without apparently much sucess since the uploader just seems to reupload files after they've been deleted. I think this might be the third time or fourth time they done that. Any suggestions on how to best proceed other that tagging it with {{npd}} (which I did) and leaving another note on their user talk (which I did). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd just go ahead and tag it; it'll get deleted, and maybe eventually the uploader will figure out what to do. I think they been told multiple times so I don't know why I think it'll be different this time, but I'm an eternal optimist.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! assessment categories.

May I ask that you restore these categories? These were emptied without any discussion by Magicperson6969, who went through and mass deleted all the {{WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh!}} tags from the talk pages. WP:ANIME is trying to sort things out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! work group articles and further categorisation and I have restored the deleted tags. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fully following but will be happy to help. Two questions:

1. Can you be specific about which categories you mean? Do you mean the 11 categories on Template:WikiProject_Yu-Gi-Oh!?
2. What is the rationale behind restoration as opposed to re-creation? Is a really any value to the history of the category?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes the assessment categories that Magicperson6969 wrongly and without consensus emptied.
2. Does preserving attribution of previous contributors also apply to categories as well as article and template space? —Farix (t | c) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Current women's CBB standings

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/US College Division 1#Conference current year standings templates done! — Wyliepedia 02:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Thanks, great work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)