User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 36

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at The Rambling Man's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 22:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Women's basketball taskforce: City boy77

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at City boy77's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

City boy77 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at The Rambling Man's talk page.
Message added 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, TRM has deleted[1] most but NOT ALL of all your thread. His edit summary reading ' I told WilliamJE not to post here. Take it somewhere else. Sorry Sphilbrick,'. Obviously he didn't listen to 'Listening to complaints is something we signed up for.' I think TRM violated WP:REFACTOR because he deleted only part of the talk page discussion, not the whole thing. Obviously he's editing your and my comments. You really think this and his violations of WP:WIAPA which was the reason Nyttend warned[2] him....William 12:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

TRM has the right to remove material from his talk page. He can do so in part, or selectively, although one should avoid doing so in a manner that would materially mislead a reader. I've checked, and he has not come close to violating any guidelines, so once again, you are grasping at straws.

I posted on his talk page because there were some things that troubled me, and I wanted to give him a chance to respond. In at least one case, he did provide an answer to a question I had. However, his talk page is not the place for a discussion between you and I, so I can appreciate that he wasn't interested in that colloquy on his page.

Let's respect his wishes, Feel free to copy here any points you wished to make.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

One and only quick response to this, "Obviously he didn't listen to 'Listening to complaints is something we signed up for.'" no, of course I listened (actually "read") that, but I asked WilliamJE to not post to my talk page with the walls of text we're now all becoming accustomed to. I removed all text besides your post (Sphilbrick) and my response. Any claims of "refactoring" are purely in bad faith I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the story

Too lazy to manually archive, so closing a now closed item

Everything TRM deleted is below....William 13:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Nyttend in his first warning to TRM referred to WP:WIAPA which reads in part under the section 'What is considered to be a personal attack' it reads- Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Accusations that I was editing while not logged in to escape scrutiny, fit that qualification....William 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC) William, you are way off base here. Way off. If you read what I just wrote, I explained that I didn't consider it best practice to make comments that someone might construe as hinting at behavior that is frowned upon. But those hints, while short of ideal behavior are far from a personal attack. Maybe you've had too many interactions with TRM, and see everything through a distorted lens. That you even think this is a blockable offense causes me to question whether you understand our policies. I think TRM could have handled the exchange better, just as an uninvolved admin will probably tell I could handle my response to you better. I promised if you brought me behavior of admin abuse I would stand up to it. You haven't come close to identifying anything of substance, other than your willingness to bring absurd complaints to ANI. I stand by my offer, but only once more. If you contact me again about admin abuse, and it isn't clear abuse, then feel free to contact me as often as you want, but I'll tune it out. You've cried wolf multiple times and you've identified nothing of substance. I feel like I'm being played. I hope I'm wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Without reading my bold comments, you jumped to an absurd conclusion that my allegations against TRM baseless. Explain then Nyttend's two warnings to TRM and the mostly strong commentary of the IP who say to the contrary? TRM has engaged in personal attacks, been warned and issued a final warning for it but continued his behavior, and nobody wants to do anything when a administrator has clearly committed abuse around here. Now tell me how that isn't wrong or your putting words in my mouth or saying absurd when you freely admit not reading everything that's in bold?...William 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC) What a day. We had a rainstorm here which created gullies in my driveway. Which sounds like whining, except when I say gullies, I mean deep enough and long enough that I wouldn't invite someone to visit without a 4 wheel drive. I just ordered six cubic yards of fill so I can fill them in. Which I have to shovel by hand tomorrow. On a more positive note, I talked to my daughter about asset management concepts (that was a high point, really). I listened to Jimbo Wales talking about some of his visions at Wikimania. Another high point. Then I had to deal with an editor who thinks "Thanks for logging in..." is a personal attack so egregious that it deserves a block. That was not a high point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC) "Thanks for logging in..." is a personal attack so egregious that it deserves a block. I said no such thing. TRM wrote in his very first words to me on August 7th- "By the way, this may not apply, of course, but editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny is generally frowned upon... and thanks for adding those two citations while we discussed this." Those two Ashland Ohio edits were done by an IP. He knows that, you'd know that if you checked the web history. In simple words- TRM was accusing me of editing not logged in to escape scrutiny and as we all know that claim is both without evidence and bogus. As I pointed out above WP:WIAPA, the grounds for Nyttend's warnings to TRM, reads under the section 'What is considered to be a personal attack' it reads- reads- Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence . The words 'thanks for adding those two citations while we discussed this' are an accusation. How can you miss that or what WP:WIAPA says which was the grounds Nyttend cited for the warning. He thought it was an accusation/personal attack....William 01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC) To claim "I thought thanks for logging in" is a personal attack while at the same time missing TWO IN BOLD quotes of TRM's on your talk page not to mention the clear words of WP:WAIPA hhich I pointed out to you for the 2nd time is just incredible. You can't see what's there but can see things that aren't....William 01:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Here's what Nyttend wrote[3]- Please remember that WP:WIAPA notes that making accusations of misconduct without evidence is considered a personal attack; your comments on WilliamJE will result in a block if you continue. Here's Nyttend's final warning[4]- This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Accusations of lying are not permitted, and a block will follow the next NPA violation. Nyttend chiming in would be real useful but he doesn't chime in at talk pages too often. Just look at his own....William 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't miss quotes in bold on my talk page, I hadn't yet read them. There's a difference. I note you accuse TRM of lying, should I do the same to you? I won't, because you made an understandable mistake. I shan't say any more now, because I am angry, and it is best if I sleep on this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) He did lie. TRM said on the August 7th TFD that he had told me never to post to his talk page again. Something he hadn't done at the time. I'm angry because you're putting words in my mouth--"I thought thanks for logging in" is a personal attack that I never said or anything close to it....William 02:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC) William, you need to seriously rethink how you interact with people. Somewhere you claim it is because TRM alleged you were editing without logging in, and that is the inference of "Thanks for logging in..." Do you know what an ellipsis is? Do you understand its purpose? When you said you got angry because I referred to "I thought thanks for logging in" as a personal attack, you removed the ellipsis. This isn't a minor point. I didn't feel like including the whole sentence so I used the standard construction of including a part and an ellipsis to indicate which sentence I meant. You removed it. I'll AGF that you missed the point. Oddly though, while I would prefer that admin not write that way, the opening four words are the main point. You seem to focus on the "editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny is generally frowned upon" while skipping over the "this may not apply, of course". I want you to understand some things about how this place works. We have a problem with editors who sometimes edit under their user name, and sometimes as an IP. It can be done inappropriate, and often is. Admins have the responsibility to watch for such activities. It isn't an exact science, it involves educated guesses, and observations of behavior that are unlikely to occur by chance, but it is rarely definitive. For these reasons, I urge admins to be very careful about making allegations. TRM observed some behavior that looked suspicious. He shared some concerns with you, carefully caveating that they might not apply to you. While I would like to see it handled differently, the observation that editing while logged out is desirable, coupled with the caveat that the warning may not apply to you personally, is very far removed form a personal attack. It is not a close call. Let me repeat that, it is not a close call. How would you feel if I put something in quotes, and claimed you said it? What actions should be taken against me? Now recognize that you just did that. However, I am going to assume you simply made a mistake, and ask you to look closer, and consider refactoring your false claim.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Nothing I wrote to you wasn't in good faith. On the other hand you've made at least one wrong statement here or passed some judgment without reading what I wrote and you admitted it. You're forgetting the two instances over at TRM's talk page and I am tired of pointing things out to you multiple times and getting ignored. Just like with Nyttend's warnings and more. The IP even said TRM is conducting a wikihounding campaign against me. Again when it comes to administrators, WP policies don't get applied to them. They protect their own I am not the only one who thinks it. I despise bullies and anyone who protects and makes excuses is no better than them. Bye....William 19:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC) You might want to look up Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Here's why: Accusing me of missing a statement on my talk page—not good faith Misquoting me and not fixing it when asked—not good faith Accusing me of "forgetting the two ..."—not good faith Alleging I've made a wrong statement and not identifying it—not good faith Claiming I'm ignoring you when I've spent hours writing to you—not good faith I think it is time to show you what ignoring looks like. If you write out a proper complaint, with diffs, I'll respond. If you simply wikilawyer, and falsely accuse me, I'll ignore you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I've laid down the differentials multiple times up above, referred you to Nyttend's warnings, and TRM's attack after he was issued a final warning. If a administrator isn't blocked after doing something he was told not to, and nothing is done about it for three days running, that says administrators won't ever enforce rules against administrators. You wrote- He shared some concerns with you, carefully caveating that they might not apply to you. But you're forgetting ignoring that right after that TRM said thanks for adding those two citations while we discussed this'. Those two citations weren't added to Ashland Ohio by me but by a IP editor. But TRM is thanking me, and that says he thinks I was the IP. It is clear as day and his accusation was both without evidence and totally wrong. Nyttend warned[5] him not to make accusations without proof and issued a final warning[6] but TRM went ahead and did it anyway. TRM wrote[7] "It appears that certain editors have both left messages and emailed various admins to monitor my actions" Balderdash. I cut and pasted the emails to you yesterday and they're sitting in your email you've designated to wikipedia. TRM after being given a final warning made another accusation was both untrue and without evidence. Nobody has done anything to TRM, who's conveniently ducked out of WP. That's the new game for admins besides violating policy without fear of ever getting sanctioned for it. Get caught breaking policy, take a break. Toddst1 did just that a month ago after violating WP:INVOLVED (BTW I didn't accuse him of it, but another admin) and being called on it but nothing was done to him either. If you're wondering why Nyttend didn't do anything or what's his opinion on TRM's post final warning statement- I don't know. I informed him[8] of it on his talk page, but he's not uttered a syllable in reply. You wrote- "If you write out a proper complaint, with diffs, I'll respond." I wrote a complaint a day and a half ago and I'm going on my 3rd time with supplying you with differentials....William 01:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC) William you have no idea how confusing you are making this. I think I am finally managing to figure some of it out. But it is exceedingly difficult. (I'll try to number some of the relevant posts. In the section "Something for you", you said: (1) "TRM did just that" referring to making attacks. This is the link you provided: [9] Please go to the link, and notice it does not go to what you claimed it did. Not a big deal, you made a mistake, but I didn't know what you were referring to, so asked. In the meantime, TRM responds to you (2), then you respond back (3), and TRM responds again (4), and you respond again (5). I now realize post (5) was your restatement of the attack (I think), but it wasn't obvious at the time. Remember your original link was bad, so I had no idea what you were now posting is the attack in question. (Assuming it is, there's a lot not clear.) So I find some time to look into some of it, can't find the most important link, and ask you some question at 19:49. You respond at 21:216. One of those responses is immediately after my post, where I expect an answer to be and starts "Here's your answer" I suggest that most reasonable people, after asking a question, and getting a response where they expect it, which starts with "Here's your answer", would leap to the conclusion that it is the answer to my question. However, I now see that you also included part of your post further up the thread. Helpfully indented, but when I looked I first saw the words "Here's your answer", I looked at that section. At some later time, I realized you had also posted some other material. I know thread discussions can ne confusing, and some people do find it desirable to post within someone else's post so the answer is near the question, but it is confusing. To add to the confusion, after you wrote " I'm cutting and pasting what I wrote above and it has links" you added the material above which I thought was a response to TRM not to me, but you reversed the bolding. So it starts bold, then drops bold, and becomes bold again. It struck me as odd, because the section not in bold seemed more important than the sections in bold. I now guess, for reasons I cannot fathom, that you chose to reverse the bolding. However, please try to read it through my eyes - I'm reading someone from you, I think, that starts of "To quote you" which means it is you quoting someone else, and it has a bolding convention that doesn't make much sense. So while I apologize for missing it for some time, you've got to meet me part way and be clearer. You might be able to figure out who said what and why things are in bold because you were part of it, but trust me it is confusing. Somewhere, I've gotten the impression you are unhappy about being accused of editing anonymously. So I see the sentence that refers to logging in and it seems natural this is relevant. When I refer to the whole sentence, and suggest it doesn't sound so bad, you go ballistic because you misunderstood my reference. Apparently you thought I was referring only to the first few words. Before I go on, do you realize how many words have been spilled and I am still not sure of your central complaint. You've now taken to claiming it is somewhere in the sea of text above, but if I make a reasonable guess, and it isn't exactly right, you get angry. So tell me already. That sentence goes on to include a comment about editing anonymously. It doesn't accuse you of doing it, but perhaps you read it that way. It took care to caveat that it might not apply to you. I do not know, at this moment, whether you are ignoring the caveat, and think that was an attack, or if your emphasis is on something else. So tell me already. You are now saying that the key phrase is when TRM thanked you for edits you did not make. So let's see if I've got this right (read this carefully, I am making a guess based upon your statements. If I misread you, which is very possible, calmly explain why my inference is wrong, do not fly off the handle. I contend it is a reasonable inference based upon the evidence, although I think it is an absurd inference): You would like an admin blocked because he thanked you for improving the encyclopedia (and it turns out he was wrong to thank you, because the edits were made by someone else) I am absolutely sure you cannot mean this, but I cannot see any other inference based upon what you just told me in bold.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Wow, proper walls. I have nothing to add here, other than a quick response to "Nobody has done anything to TRM, who's conveniently ducked out of WP. That's the new game for admins besides violating policy without fear of ever getting sanctioned for it. Get caught breaking policy, take a break". I've not "conveniently ducked out of WP" nor have I been "caught breaking policy .... take a break". I'm not sure if WilliamJE is appraised of common social trends in the UK, but we tend to take our "summer holidays" in late-July and August. I'm trying my best to enjoy mine, with a variety of trips here and there (Portsmouth this weekend, and a week or so in beautiful Devon in due course [which, for the conspirators, I've had booked since March... *gasp*!). Such an assumption of bad faith from WilliamJE is entirely unnecessary and doesn't help his cause in the pursuit of my blockage (fnar). Sphilbrick, I hope you've got your driveway sorted out. Sounds like a nightmare.... Have a good Sunday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Devon eh? Enjoy some clotted cream.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I'll leave that to my better half, I'm more of a fish-and-chips and beer kinda guy! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A new problem with women's basketball pages

This problem started today. The same infobox has been used for men's and women's basketball up until now. The way to distinguish if it was between men's or women's was by adding the |sex=women into the infobox. Now that link has stopped working. Take a look at the page I created today. 2013–14 Texas Tech Lady Raiders basketball team Notice the infobox says Texas Tech Lady Raiders men's basketball. This is despite the |sex=women being listed in the infobox. I thought maybe it was a goof on my part, so i looked at last years pages. This included BYU, Baylor, Gonzaga, and others. They all have the same problem. Despite the infobox having the |sex=women listed, they have all been changed to men in the infobox. Any news on how to resolve this little problem? Bigddan11 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see some with the same problem. Any idea if this is recent? I looked at one, but I wouldn't have noticed had I not been looking. The template was last edited in July, I think I would have heard by now, but not sure.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that changing from:

|Mode=Basketball

to

|Mode=Women's Basketball

seems to work (including the season links) but I see that as a work around, not a solution. I've posted a question to the editor who most recently edited the template: here. Dinner calls.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was just visiting the infobox sandboxes, and it appears to be a change they made earlier this year. It appears they are trying to merge all the team infoboxes into 1 mode, and that the way to distinguish it will be by the mode. The change is basically distinguishable from the mode now instead of the sex.Bigddan11 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with that, but I'd think they should have tried some notification. Or maybe they did and I didn't see it. I added an announcement to the task force pages, will now modify it--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Anissa Kate

• Would you have a problem if I moved this to mainspace? I didn't see the original version of the article, but I can assure you that this version has no copyright infringements. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead Erpert (which is not an admin endorsement that everything is fine, but passes a cursory glance.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes arbitration case

I notice that you've added a comment today to the Workshop page of the Infoboxes arbitration case [10]. Per the header at the top of all the Infobox case pages the workshop closed on the 7th. I'm not an arbitration clark so I wont remove your addition myself, but it would be most polite if you would self-revert. The workshop talk page does remain open. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A tool to help acquire photos

(Originally post on fr:Discussion utilisateur:Benoit Rochon#A tool to help acquire photos)

I'm watching the wikimania video feed of your presentation. Nicely done, I've been in one photo contest, but I'd like to take part in some of the more organized things you discussed. I thought you might be intersted in the following resource. While I've only taken a quick look it will create a path and identify locations needing images.--Sphilbrick (talk) 11 août 2013 à 19:41 (CEST)

Thanks for your comments and also for the app proposal, but too bad, I have an iPhone!

You said you want to take part in the more organized photo events I've mention, do you mean Wiki Loves..., Wiki Takes..., Photo Walk? In which city do you live? If you need help to organize your own,I can give you a hand. Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The closest city is Hartford CT. At the moment, I'm not prepared to organize it, even with help, I just started a new task force last week, and want to concentrate on that. If someone in Connecticut were to organize a Photography contest of some sort, I'd like to be a participant. I'm not sure we have the density of locations to justify a walk. But a bike ride might make sense. As for the app, I have an iPhone as well. I didn't try it on a phone, I tried it on a desk computer, so I'll have to check out what happens on a phone, didn't realize that was a limitation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: map of the PA state parks

Thanks - it has been so long since I did that map that I am a bit fuzzy as to how I did it. I assume you know to look at {{State parks of Pennsylvania map}} for the source code.

I am pretty sure that I had the map in a graphics editor at the same resolution as the map used in the template. The graphics editor was probably MS Paint, (but anything that showed the pixel location of the cursor would work). I then would look at the state park article (using the same map) and eyeball where the dot was. I then moved the cursor to the same approximate location on the PA map in Paint, noted the pixel coordinates, and entered them in the template.

I do recall that there was a fair amount of tweaking - for example in PA there are three parks quite close together (Sand Bridge, R.B. Winter, and McCall's Dam) and I had to move (some of) their dots so that they would not overlap. I also seem to recall that the dot location varied a little depending on the browser used (only a few pixels, but that can make a difference for parks on lake or sea shores or right on the border of a state).

I looked at one CT state park article and saw it uses the Geobox and one of the locator maps I made, so you can get the coordinates for the map edges at {{Geobox locator Connecticut}}, if that would help in terms of calculating the dot pixels. My guess is you would still have to tweak the dots a bit.

If you enter "Template:State parks of" in the search box, there are similar maps for IL, UT, AZ, LA, IA, MN, and FL (in addition to PA). I made the one for IL, and it shows more than one kind of protected area (so if you want to include state forests and state parks on the same map, it might be a good model). I also think it might help to ask others who made similar maps how they did it - Ebyabe did the FL map, and Mcghiever made the UT map. Both are still active and may have better ideas / tricks than I do. Please ask if you need more help or have questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive answers. I have a lot of things on my plate, so not sure I can get to it right away. Your process sounds like a fair amount of work :) I will look at some of the other maps. I've done some maps, e.g. see the maps on 1982_NCAA_Women's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament but there I was able to use the coords. I had to struggle with overlapping points, I wish I had thought of your idea of sliding one over a bit :)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully one of the other map editors has a less laborious method. Ask whenever you have questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a golden plated broom

	WikiMop of Justice
	For cleaning out the CSD:G13 category almost as fast as HasteurBot can stuff records in. Unfortuntely the gold plating makes the broom no longer practical as a cleanup tool. Hasteur (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll just have to mount it over the fireplace, and continuing using this straw one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

AN post

You might need to tighten the wording in this edit--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Please explain your concern. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"we have not, and will not, take appropriate measures to avoid prosecution and loss of our assets". I would have thought the opposite. Am I missing a subtle point?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, we will not go underground, operate anonymously in venues where the law cannot reach us. I'm not fully informed on how Pirate Bay operates, but we will not operate in that way. (under normal, and foreseeable, circumstances, of course) User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that if someone did host some illegal material on our site, we wouldn't remove it simply because we might get prosecuted or sued for damages.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ionut Ursu

I was hoping you could help me out with something. A little over two years ago, you deleted Ionut Ursu. It's since been recreated as a redirect. Could you tell me which user created the version you deleted? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik I'm not quite sure how to do that. I can find it in the deletion log, but I don't know how to see prior edits. There are a number of very sharp talk page stalkers around, maybe one can give me a hint?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried deletionpedia, but no luck.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik, someone at VPT helped me, User:Sebybc, who hasn't edited since 2011.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, here is the entire original content:

Ionuţ Ursu (1989) is a Romanian football player, who currently plays for FCM Bacău.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up please

The timing is horrible but I'm under the weather and heading for bed. Wizardman, I appreciate the concern, but I'm fine.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. Not 100%, but here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

glomerular lipidosis

Too lazy to manually archive, so closing a now closed item

you have ruined the work of my entire life by deleting this article.I have worked on this subject for forty years and then created this article full with information.I am going to commit suicide tommarowAmericanluck (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) We are required to report credible concerns about suicide to law enforcement authorities. If you respond that this was an over-reaction, I do not have to take that step, otherwise, we will.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC) This is the second threat of self harm 1. Please email me re: this Flat Out let's discuss it 11:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC) In case a TPS is inclined to provide advice, the Foundation has been informed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Dear fellows you don't need to be concerned, I am fighting with society and I know that I will loss this fight. I don't want to live as gay so I will definitely kill my self. Sorry for troubleAmericanluck (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC) If you are in the US, please call 1-800-273-8255.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC) I am a US resident, but I am not mad to call cops to arrest me. just leave me. no one can stop me from taking my undesirable lifeAmericanluck (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC) That phone number does not go to the police.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thanks for fixing the Nezar Hindaawi page earlier this month, after I'd flagged a problem there. I wasn't sure how to handle it, and I appreciate your help.

Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Move on

I am writing to apologize to The Rambling Man aka TRM for things I said about him recently. They were cruel totally uncalled for. From this point on I will work together with him to improve articles around Wikipedia.

To Sphilbrick I apologize for bringing my disagreement over to his talk page and being mean spirited to him on more than one occasion.

Sphilbrick, could you please either delete the remaining threads on this page involving TRM and me or archive them? Thank you.

Again I apologize to all concerned....William 00:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and am very happy to hear it. I hope we can all have a fresh start.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, from me too. Emotions over-ran on all sides, and for what it's worth, I'm sorry too. We can certainly move on in a constructive fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just a gift.

...William 01:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore?

I just deleted Talk:Erik Borg as a 'talk page of a non existent or deleted page'. I then caught some later comments at AfC on this in my watchlist. Feel free to restore or userfy the draft if think appropriate. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I restored it. While I do not predict it to survive, I don't see it as G8--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unused file redirects

Id been trying to clear the 0 linked entries here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused file redirects.

Thanks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I assumed it was something like that. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG I see File:Jester.jpg in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_in_category.When I open it I do not see a CSD notice. The image appears to be a Commons image, but the link appears to be a redirect to a building.

Not quite sure what is going on here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons pass thru? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I get that but why is it listed in the category, because I do not see a CSD notice either in WP or at commons. My initial thought was that it was a mistake, but I see a redirect in there, and know you are working on cleaning out redirects, so I thought you might have added it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If you hover over the file name Jester.jpg, you will see a redirect to this image File:Jester Dormitory on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin (19 03 2003).jpg] and a csd notice {{db-g6}}, but when I open the file, it brings me to the Commons pass thru, so I don't know how to get to the redirect to delete it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)