User talk:Sphilbrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

CSD nomination of Harshhussey articles[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at David Condrey's talk page.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Sargdub's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gender Gap Strategy: Join us for a call![edit]

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Request Edits[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. It's been a while since I've bothered you about Request Edits and I was wondering if you had time to take a look at a few of mine, such as this one on Heather Bresch. I've been scrounging looking for editors to chime in on a few pages, but been getting a lot of "I'm busy with other stuff" type responses. CorporateM (Talk) 20:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm a bit backed up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, not getting better yet.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate summary[edit]

The Ryulong site ban is passing 7-5-1, it is listed in the summary table as failing 4-4. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Greetings, the edit request function of the "view source" tab of doesn't appear to be working properly for me, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble, would it please be possible to have a statement currently saddled in my talk page be edited in? Thank you for your time and patience. WhatNeverHappens (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry[edit]

Hello! The page I created, BetaPsiOmega was deleted for copyrighting reasons that I do not understand as I am the individual that created the original information and it is not yet copyrighted. Could you shed some light on why this was deleted and how I might be able to resubmit this page? It seems that you are the deletion editor. (18:05, 26 November 2013 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Psi Omega) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betapsiomega (talkcontribs)

I see that a draft of an article, Draft:Beta Psi Omega was deleted, though not by me. It was deleted because it appeaared to infringe on which is subject to copyright.
Do I have the wrong article?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see that you are not talking about the recent deletion in January of this year, but a deletion which occurred a couple years ago. I'll look further.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Betapsiomega: I found it. The Article for Creation was not deleted due to copyright reasons. It was deleted because reviewers identified some issues:
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."
and then it was abandoned for over six months.
I'm adding a link, which you cannot see, but it will help me in case further questions arise. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beta Psi Omega--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access[edit]

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1 article[edit]

Could you please move any one article to User:Titodutta/villages/TITLE with a noindex magic word? I want to check few things and discuss with a few users who can't see deleted content. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done User:Titodutta/villages/Bommanjogi--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


The article Do-ocracy has been deleted and re-created as many as 5 times. Due to obvious reasons, it is requested that all deleted revisions be restored. SD0001 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite so obvious to me. Are you looking for past contributions to be userfied somewhere?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request Edits[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. I was trying to think of someone I haven't pestered in a while to look at some Request Edits and I was wondering if you had time to hammer out a couple simple ones.[1][2] CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My current "free time" is addressing the 1400 Permission requests at OTRS. That said, I'll see if I can take a break from that and look into a request edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I addressed the first (though I ended up suggesting more changes are needed.) I looked at the second, and see others are involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was surprised to see your name pop up on my watchlist, because I had figured this was long forgotten by now. There is more context about the Shaygan Kheradpir article here. It needs more editors involved that actually do not have a COI. However, it probably won't be a "quick fix" type of case and it's always hard to drag editors into that kind of thing. I do have another simple one here which is actually regarding making the page less promotional and so shouldn't be much of a COI problem. I've suggested a Request Edit|G since it would involve a large number of tedious edits that would be a burden for someone to do by proxy. CorporateM (Talk) 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Miyagi Zaō Fox Village[edit]

Could you undelete this article at User:Makkachin/Miyagi Zaō Fox Village so that I can further expand it until it reaches acceptable lengths? Is there an automated way for article authors to "view source" of a "deleted" article so that editors don't have to bother moderators? --Makkachin (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done
There is no automated way to do this, for good reason. That said, I contemplated not doing this. It is a single sentence. I spent much more time doing this than it would have taken you you rewrite a single sentence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What did I miss?[edit]

I'm a little concerned about this edit of yours at Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Is this normal practice for when some random individual contacts the Foundation with a request to add a link to their favorite conspiracy theory news site? I would have expected the usual protocol when someone with no particular personal relationship to an article says "Hey, you guys should use this link!" would be to refer them (perhaps with some boilerplate text) to some introductory material on how Wikipedia works, and where to find article talk pages. It looks sort of weird to get a message from the Foundation (even if the WMF is just the messenger...?) that implies that this sort of silly article even might be a "helpful source".

So, should editors be reading something here as "behind the scenes" or "between the lines"? Are there legal threats, real or implied? I mean, my understanding – which may be mistaken – is that the WMF mostly takes a hands-off attitude to Wikipedia content, as long as we're following our policies and not egregiously embarrassing the project.

Or is saying "I'll be sure to let them know about your concern" just the quickest way to get the anti-vaccination wingnuts out of the WMF's email queue? (And should we just thank you for not sending them directly to be a nuisance on the talk page? Though I do feel a bit bad for User:DoctorJoeE, who's probably wasted the time he's spent composing a detailed rebuttal to a person who's likely never going to read it.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is normal practice, but perhaps it should be. As you know, but I'll emphasize in case anyone else is reading this and reads too quickly, I did not add the link to the article. I occasionally have done so, but only after investigation and consideration of whether it belonged. Instated, a person who could easily have added the note to the talk page, but did not because they didn't know how Wikipedia worked, contacted Wikipedia concerned that the article was biased and suggesting a site with relevant information. In the past, I have sometimes suggested that they bring it up on the talk page, which is the proper place for the discussion, but I also recognize that many people, who have never edited Wikipedia, are not sure how to do that, so I often add a note tot he talk page, then respond to the individual that they can continue the discussion on the talk page. We don't want OTRS to be a place to argue such issues.
The one thing you said that concerns me is the possibility that the wording could leave the impression that the comment had the imprimatur of the Foundation. That would be unacceptable, but I've reread my edit, and can't for the life of me, imagine how anyone would get that impression. If someone does, let me know, so I can improve the wording, because I do this sort of thing on a semi-regular basis.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one important correction. They did not get a message from the Foundation. I did not mention the Foundation in my response to the person, or in my edit. The email response comes with a note making it quite clear that it is not from the Foundation. Here's the wording:
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to
be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official
correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address
listed on Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't say or insinuate that the person got a particular message from the Foundation. I said that you left a message from the Foundation on the talk page of our article—to a naive reader like me, it reads like that, even if that wasn't your intent. Your edit (diff above) opened with "A reader contacted Wikimedia..." (I presumed that 'Wikimedia' was the Wikimedia Foundation) and thereby implies that what follows is from a Foundation representative.
I'm less concerned about whatever message(s) you might have sent to this individual, and more concerned with the implicit (and perhaps unintended) message you sent to the enwiki editors when you mentioned Wikimedia (the WMF) in your talk page message. When someone mentions WMF and points out a link on an article talk page, there's a subtextual hint that WMF wants us to look really closely at something. Bear in mind that the editors on the enwiki talk page don't automatically see or presume the disclaimers that may exist on the WMF's pages or may be attached to emails that you send.
In this instance, it's obvious that some editors took your edit as a serious suggestion from someone 'important' and spent a disproportionate amount of time rebutting a very poor suggestion on that basis. I don't know if you reviewed the content or context of the link that you passed on, but do bear in mind that even though you didn't add the link directly to the article, your talk page edit still imposed measurable – and frankly unnecessary – costs on editors who already put up with a lot. Please keep this in mind in the future; a little less brevity can sometimes be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think of Wikimedia as the Wikimedia Foundation, but as the generic name meaning Wikipedia, and other associated projects, such as Commons, Wiktionary, etc. If someone else thanks that the reference to Wikimedia would be viewed as shorthand for Wikimedia Foundation, please let me know and suggest an alternative. In this specific case, they were contacting a site about Wikipedia, but I handle more tickets for Commons than Wikipedia, so I adopted Wikimedia as a generic term. (In the past, I considered stating that someone has contacted OTRS, and have sometimes used that language, but many editors don't know what that means).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
In general usage I've found that when people refer to 'Wikimedia', they mean the umbrella organization – the Foundation – rather than the entire conglomeration of Foundation projects, or OTRS, or some other component. (Heck, Wikimedia is a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation.) By far the preferred option is to be explicit, however; just say Commons or Meta or OTRS or English Wikipedia. And if you're not sure that other editors will know what OTRS is (a legitimate concern, certainly), it's far better to explain yourself (if nothing else, WP:OTRS is a bluelink) than to substitute an ambiguous – and potentially ominous – term.
As to the actual content of your edit, I'm bothered that, essentially, you decided that it was worthwhile to pass on the link from the OTRS message, but not to educate the person who sent it, or to evaluate the content before deciding that the article's editors should waste time on it. In other words, you gave the person what they wanted (kind of), but you didn't give that person the help they needed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a fair point that I ought to take the time to identify whether it is Wikipedia or Commons. Working at OTRS feels like drinking from a fire hose, and I may have taken a short cut I shouldn't have taken. I'll try to change that.
As to the content, in the past, I have taken the time to write out how the person can add the comment to the talk page. I still do on occasion, but sometimes find it is faster to do it myself than to explain. With the backlog, I'm looking for faster options.
They didn't get what they wanted. They wanted me to rewrite the article using the material at the link. I didn't even touch the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 33rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hard to believe it was three years ago. Seems like the other day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Pamje nga Desivojca.jpg
I agree. Those were the day of reformation (first link under the lead image on my user page) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hope, pictured --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Deborah Valdez - Hung's Page[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick,we would like to recreate our page for Deborah by replacing refined content, which we believe suits Wikipedia's guidelines/policies. PLease advice what we should do now to upload the refined content. Thank you in advance. Yvonne202.175.98.170 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If you substantially rewrite the article, you are free to start over.
I urge you to enlist people not close to the subject to review the wording. Phrases such as “ combining her passion for fashion and business”, “boasting a growing portfolio of over 700 models” and “intimately involved in a number of charities” are phrases one might find in a marketing blurb, not an encyclopedia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise. Based on your last comments, we have rephased or deleted those sentences that might find in a marketing blurb. However, should we draft the new content in Sandbox for review before we post it officially? YvonneRare.Remarkable SH (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's really up to you. If you post it in a sandbox, you can ask for a review which takes time, but might provide helpful advise which will prevent deletion. Just posting it as an article will get it up faster, but may also result in a more abrupt deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Many new articles fail because editors do not have enough references to justify inclusion – while I only spend a couple minutes looking at the article in question, my recollection is that it had quite a few references, and failed because of wording issues. Given that, if you have addressed that issue, it may be worth going for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
  • New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
  • TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Janét Aizenstros[edit]

Please check Ticket:2015012710003532. Jee 16:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: I deleted it because it was created by a banned or blocked user, not due to copyright concerns (although I see that it had earlier been deleted for that reason.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It's OK; You may handle/close that ticket accordingly. Jee 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of the deleted article[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick,

I'm writing to you to ask you to restore the deleted article about The Millennium Project - here is the link:

I want to update missing informations, links etc. regarding this article and connect it to the existing The Millennium Project pages in Polish, Deutsch, Spanish and Portugues Wikipedia.

Please advise me what steps I have to take to restore this article.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmora (talkcontribs) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The article I deleted was simply a redirect to State of the Future which was deleted by User:RoySmith. Please check with that admin.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, this gets complicated. Millennium Project was originally proposed for deleteion 10 years ago, and was kept by a near unanimous margin. Of course, that was 10 years ago, and community norms have changed since then. It next came up for review about 6 months ago, where it was @Spinningspark: redirected to State of the Future in a very close decision, and that is the article I eventually deleted, also by a less-than-overwhelming consensus. Adding to the confusion, there appears to be (from the last AfD) two different things which are referred to as Millenium Project, one associated with the UN, and one not. I'm not sure at this point which one we're even discussing here. My inclination is to short-circuit a lot of DRV wiki-lawyering and just restore the 10 year old version of Millenium Project to draft space, where @Zmora: can then work on improving it with an eye towards possibly moving it back to main article space at some point in the future. Does that seem like a reasonable plan? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick,

that sounds very good, we can proceed with this plan. I will also contact User:RoySmith regarding the State of the Future article.

Many thanks!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmora (talkcontribs) 15:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored a recent version of this to Draft:The Millennium Project. The entire history is there, so you can go back in time and find older material which had been removed. You can work on it there, and possibly at some time, if the issued raised at the last AfD are corrected, it might get moved back into main article space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you could tell me who had originally created the AfC draft of Game Masters (exhibition) that I later expanded and brought to mainspace. I see from this link that you deleted the draft but I would like to know the identity of the editor who originally created it so I can give credit where credit is due. I'm not sure if this is possible, but I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thibbs: It was created by an IP A couple others contributed by but it looks like copy editing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've given proper credit now. -Thibbs (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Just as an FYI: I incidentally mentioned you in a post on Jimbo's page. No response needed or expected, but thought you should know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I am fully immersed in the Fnal Four, and barely paying attention to Wikipedia until it is over (tonight) and I get back home (maybe next Tuesday)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Abecedare: I've now read that discussion. Although I am an Arbcom clerk, so should be very familiar with the Wifone case, I have been disengaged with Wikipedia for a few months, so did not follow it. I thnk-you for letting me know you mentioned me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool[edit]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Adele[edit]

Sorry to trouble you, but could you delete the Talk:Adele redirect as well so the talk page can be reunited with the article? Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@This is Paul:, I think @Hut 8.5: took care of this, let me know if I am mistaken.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I posted it shortly after you moved the article, but it looked like you'd gone offline so I db requested it then forgot to mention it here. It's all sorted out now though. This is Paul (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 McDonald's All-American Boys Game image selection[edit]

Since you participated at Talk:2014_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_choices, I am notifying you of Talk:2015_McDonald's_All-American_Boys_Game#Image_voting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NgREN Article deletion Contesting[edit]

Why would you do that? RENs all over the world have Wikipedia Articles. RENS are very important and notable the world over. Perhaps take a look at this and let me know if you still think its not notable: National research and education network . And I clearly marked it as Stub. What could be wrong with it? RENs in America and Europe have Wikipedia Articles , for example, CESNET and I do intend to document and write Wikipedia Articles on RENS in Africa. Mpmayenge (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mpmayenge: Please identify the article to which you refer and I will look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the article NgREN , see the Talk page. I am planning on compiling a list of all RENS in Africa and doing Wiki Articles on them. See this list National research and education network. Thanks. Mpmayenge (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mpmayenge: The "article" I deleted was a single sentence. Please look at Wikipedia:Drafts and consider using that namespace, or a Help:Userspace draft to develop an article, then move into main space when it is ready to stand on its own.

Deleted article[edit]

Hello S. Thanks for deleting List of awards and nominations received by Mel Brooks. The talk page for that article also had some items (wikiproject banners) on it. I have never known whether talk pages should be deleted when the article is. I went ahead and blanked it but I thought I would check with you to see if anything more needed to be done. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I usually look for talk pages when I delete an article, but missed this one. Thanks for pointing it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Your welcome and thanks for following up on this. MarnetteD|Talk 15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sharmishta Roy[edit]

Hi, I see that this article was recently deleted (under the G5 criteria). I'd like to recreate the page as she is a highly notable art director in Indian cinema. Vensatry (ping) 17:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I copied the content to: User:Vensatry/Sharmishta Roy. I trust you know to give proper permission for the original, if you use any of it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
  • New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
  • Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of an article deleted for a G5 violation[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick, I noticed you deleted the article Italian Massaua per G5, at the time of its creation I reviewed this article and also gave the creator (unaware they were a sock) a barnstar for their excellent work on this subject... it would be possible to restore the article with me taking responsability for it? if not, could you userfy the article at User:Cavarrone/ItMassaua so that I could work on it and possibly expand it a bit as to re-create it? Thanks in advance. --Cavarrone 09:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cavarrone: Yes check.svg Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI this was proxying you accidentaly facilitated, regards. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, this is NOT proxing. As I wrote above, at the time of its creation I reviewed this article and also gave the creator a barnstar, i.e. I had a previous interest for the article before its deletion and no relations with this user (I didn't know he was either banned or a sock) outside my appreciation for the creation of such article. The subject of the article is obviously notable and I requested userfication just because I found silly to throw a decent/good article in the toilet just because it was created from the "wrong guy". I am working on it, especially in the direction of verifing the sourcing and avoiding OR. You Vituzzu have to wait I have restored the article before eventually complaining about lack of notability or other issues, from what you wrote here it looks like you consider its existence as "an apology of colonialism", I respectfully disagree and certainly this is not my intent. Cavarrone 14:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll let you two work this out, but if more needs to be said, please take it elsewhere, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Request for undeletion were made before LTA's message to Cavarrone, so proxying exists, I hope it won't bring to facilitating BDA's evasions. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I publicly expressed my interest for the article/subject way before the speedy deletion of the article, and way before its creator's account was revealed as a sock of a banned user. You should try to assume good faith Vituzzu, especially towards an editor with over 2,600 articles and over 44,000 edits under his belt. Then, if you have additional issues, let's discuss on my talk page, or on the draft talk page, or somewhere else, as per Philbrick's suggestion. Cavarrone 21:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Category redirects[edit]

Hi! You deleted three category redirects I made (Rolf Haris songs, Rolph Harris songs, Rolph Haris songs). I made these soft redirects in case his name is misspelled. Bots patrol the redirects and move the pages in them to the target. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note they show up here: Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category and were deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. I'm not up for debating it now, but be aware that someone else is likely to delete them, so if you want them saved, you'll have to come up with a solution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your act of vandalism ...[edit]

... here:

You claim A10. But:

1)The article hasn't been created recently, but half a year ago.

2)It very much has a relevant page history with dozens of entries.

3)It does NOT duplicate the page which you claim (or any other on the wikipedia): lists the names and nothing else, whereas the deleted page substantially expanded on it, added a lot of detail and improved the level of information noticably.

Feel free to look up "Diligence" in a dictionary. (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the speedy deletion of the list, List of Playboy Playmates of 2015, did you happen to read what I posted to the talk page of that list? Dismas|(talk) 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why you deleted this article? I see nothing of vandalism or false information, In addition, are other lists completely equal to this, or you not wise that exist in other lists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It is tempting to deny or simply ignore this request, to help deliver the message that being rude is not the way to get things done. I'm tempted to urge you to look up "clueless" in a dictionary, because accusing an admin of vandalism in this context is gobsmackingly clueless. However, your inability to be civil, aswell as your lack of grasp of how this place works means it is doubtful you will be a long-term productive contributor, but that is orthogonal to the question of whether the article deserves deletion. At least @Dismas: made some polite and cogent comments. What should be done with this and similar articles is beyond the scope of CSD and deserves more discussion, but I agree that removing one and only one is not the way to push that discussion ahead.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking my points into consideration. And for reinstating the article. I appreciate it. I'm sorry that you had to put up with the rude comments of the IP editors. Have a good day, Dismas|(talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. Feel free to give in to this temptation. (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Want to redo deleted page.[edit]

Hello, some time ago you had deleted a page: Nebraska Latino American Commission. I would like to redo this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasel.Cantu (talkcontribs) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't find such a page. I can find deleted pages, but I need the exact spelling, or the date. Were you the editor? I can find it that way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean Draft:Nebraska Latino American Commission? That exists - I see it was recently restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please refrain from inserting misleading edit summaries like this one. It's just bad form. When edit-warring to push a POV, you shouldn't pretend otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

?? How on earth is it misleading? Are you saying the inclusion is NOT in dispute?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You're an admin now. That doesn't mean you can't POV push, but you need to do a better job of being honest. "Skeptic" alone is just as much in dispute as "denial". They're both well-supported. And no high-quality source cited appears to disputes that they're synonyms. So removing one term, and delinking it is POV pushing. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. Just be honest about it. Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I was attempting to return to a term, "skeptic", that has been in the article for years.
If you now want to question that term, that is your right, but we need to leave the page in some state while you and others make your case, and the usual approach is use a version prior to the edit war. In rare cases, a war may start when some identifies a glaring problem that has escaped the notice of others for a long time, but that isn't the case here.
In any event I stand by my statement that the inclusion of the word "denial" is in dispute. If you would like to additional declare that the term skeptic is in dispute, be my guest, but that doesn't make my edit summary misleading.
Please be exceedingly careful about challenging my honesty. I may hold opinions that aren't universal, and heaven knows i make a lot of mistakes, but being dishonest is a strong charge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)