Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75

Lip synch

Thanks for whacking off all the silly lip synch ones for me. Some are sensible but there are about a hundred in every form of verb and the synchronisation/synchronization distinction with -ize and -ise ("Fowler and the Oxford English Dictionary notwithstanding") as George Orwell puts it) it makes your eyes water sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I may have mentioned before but I think it's worth repeating — I'm not too concerned if we end up deleting one that is plausible — if someone decides that one of the terms ought to be a redirect its no big deal to re-create it. Thanks for your diligence. I look forward to the day when this mess is all cleaned up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
At my current rate it will be about 800 days' time so about oh what would that be Christmas 2019. I can speed up a bit but we do have to take due diligence we can't just go mass deleting them we have to take the same diligence as we would over any other redirect. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is no big deal if someone finds it useful then to recreate it (perhaps even to a different target). What I get whacked for is if I propose a deletion for a redirect that is "obviously" useful. That is why end up with Bőlény or somthing some codswallop for Béla I of Hungary and I am still trying to work out how someone could possibly create that. In Hungarian orthography -ny is a single letter I know it is written twice but considered as a single letter whereas in English for example we don't consider "sh" to be a single letter but a digraph (orthography) but in Hungarian they are very much considered single letters and listed like that in dictionaries, a bit like in Castillian Spanish "ll" is listed after "l" in dictionaries. How someone came to make this nonsense is a complete puzzle to me. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Backup copy of deleted page Draft:Wei_Dai ?

Hi @Sphilbrick: I saw that you deleted Draft:Wei_Dai. Is there some way that I can get a copy of that page's source so that I can continue working on it as a user draft (eg User:JonathanCross/Wei_Dai)? I've already spent many hours on that article and hope that it will someday be considered for inclusion. Thanks, – JonathanCross (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@JonathanCross:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Thanks. -- JonathanCross (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting the requested pages in my user space. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete my draft

I am planning to work on a page I had started creating some time ago. Please can you undelete so that I can get to work on improving the content?

Thanking you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj992 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dj992: I presume you mean Draft:The Knowledge Academy. If so,  Done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Berowra

A courtesy deletion would be ok with me, although I doubt if there are any legal problems. You might like to ask the help desk about that. I remember something like this came up several years ago, and the admins said they were not aware of any prohibition against using photos of private homes. Certainly in Australia, there are books full of photos of private homes. There is a whole industry devoted to books on heritage buildings etc etc which would come to a standstill if we weren't allowed to take pix of private homes.

Sardaka (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baqir Abbas (June 3)

Misdirected
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
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.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Sphilbrick, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@KylieTastic: I was just trying to help out someone who didn't submit correctly, can you redirect your message to the editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem, I don't know the tool, but I can guess that it assumes the latest editor is the one to contact.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T136911
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T136912

I just noticed this edit.[1] Are you using a bot or script? It changed 3 refs and made a mistake in two of them. The first one it eliminated the page number (page 79) from the URL, but didn't add a page argument to the cite template, so there is no way to know what page in the book the citation occurs. The third ref, it borked the URL so it no longer works. -- GreenC 15:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not using a bot or a script.
I'm using the "convert" option within visual editor.
In many cases, an editor will add a bare URL to Google books, and then manually add a page number.
See for example this edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurie_Binder&diff=prev&oldid=723190839
When I see a situation like that I copy the page number, convert the bare URL to a proper reference, then edit the reference add in the page number field, and restore the page number. This is painful, so I have requested an improvement to the process to make it a little easier to add the page number:
feature request
However, I see (to my surprise), that sometimes the URL carries an embedded page number, but the conversion drops the page number and creates a link to the book but not the specific page. That sounds like a flaw in the conversion routine and I have to find out who is responsible and let them know.
I'm not quite sure what's going on with the third link. If you started from scratch with the link and then ask visual editor to create the link for you it would create the one I created rather than the one that was there. Again looks like an error in the visual editor rendering of references. I will have to track down who is responsible for that and let them. Thanks for pointing this out I had no idea that the conversion wasn't always working I've tested it several times in the past and it seemed to be fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest not using the convert option until these are addressed. Looking at the edit history it is a common problem. Or, simply copy the entire URL. The third link is a URL encoding error, %25 is the code for "%" and it re-encoded the "%20" (which is an already encoded space) into "%2520" which is a typical problem. If that's the case there is a high probability of other problems being introduced by VE. -- GreenC 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Cardamom and Sphilbrick: I've filed the encoding bug as phab:T136911, and the Google Books bug as phab:T136912. Zhaofeng Li talk (Please {{Ping}} when replying) 05:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Zhaofeng Li, for Google Books, might want to mention in the phab that page numbers in URLs are complicated there is &PG= &PA= &PR= &PP= and maybe others. Some deal with front-matter roman numerals etc.. and they don't always match up with actual page numbers in the book. More info in discussions Template_talk:Google_books. I'll try to find more documentation. At a minimum the URL should be preserved in full. -- GreenC 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Cardamom: That's good to know! As you are more knowledgeable than me here, could you comment directly on Phabricator? Thanks! Zhaofeng Li talk (Please {{Ping}} when replying) 03:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. -- GreenC 13:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Green Cardamom: Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Please move this page now

Please move the draft for Upstairs, Downstairs Bears over the redirect. (Perhaps you can keep the redirect history, but it really doesn't matter much.)

I have worked on it significantly and plan to continue to do so, but I would like it to be moved now so that other editors would be more likely to contribute as well. (As it stands now, the draft's very existence is well-hidden.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr: It is so well hidden I didn't find it can you point me to it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found it  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Centipede92/You Can't Stump The Trump

Hi Sphilbrick, can you please restore my page? I had been using it as an article draft and logged in this morning to find it tagged and deleted before I had a chance to say anything. You Can't Stump The Trump is a very popular youtube series that I think has a real chance of being notable soon if not yet (I've found one reliable source coverage so far). --Centipede92 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Centipede92: I'm skeptical, but give it a shot.  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

re: image uploads

I don't have an ac ount on commons. I can't recall now if there was a problem establishing an account/signing on or if it was just something I never bothered with. I will take a look. Peter Flass (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Flass: That used to be an issue, but now with global accounts, I believe you automatically have one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please undelete? Draft:SI Group

Could you please restore so I can add to the page and improve it to meet wikipedia's standards? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce12bana (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ce12bana:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ce12bana (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Berowra

I see the Berowra shot has not been deleted, but I noticed that someone had added the actual street address of the house, so maybe that was the issue. I have deleted this info, so maybe this will help.

Sardaka (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sardaka: Per this discussion it appears to be more notable than I realized when I made the request, so it won't be deleted, if the current trend continues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Steve Winwood Question

You know and I know what he is saying. Of course, we are required to assume good faith. However, he is stating that, because he makes contributions to WMF and has written an article, he has ownership of the article and other editors shouldn't introduce mistakes into it. (It is also true, of course, the dispute resolution is the way to get rid of the mistakes.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my take at all. I saw an editor without a clue, trying to add references but not really knowing what they were doing, and not having enough of a clue to even ask a question. But you might be right.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

72.136.164.103

Nothing to see here

Block user:72.136.164.103. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

With such an eloquent justification, how can I not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Quit the babying around and just do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If you actually look at the user's contributions, maybe that will hold the clues as to why you should. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop being stubborn and do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do the block. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do it already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, how about you do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do it already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Get to it! 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do the block already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:9D38:74A2:E5ED:A90C (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Stephen Greif At A Signing.jpg

You added an OTRS ticket to this file. A user has since overwritten the file with a different file (also uploaded at File:Pip SG 313.jpg). Does the OTRS ticket cover both files or only the first file? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, just the original. I'll try following up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2: User_talk:Greify#Photo_permission--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I will also follow-up with an email to the individual who provided the original permission, if I do not get a satisfactory answer from the new uploader.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Then I've listed this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 14#Two files so that the problem isn't overlooked. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

G7 deletion

Did you mean to delete the user talk page of a blocked editor?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo:It was requested, I missed that it was a talk page, rather than a user page or subspace. Restored.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Energyplus

Hi, You've deleted the article "Energyplus" because of copyright reasons while the website that I have copied text from, says that all their contents are in public domain and free to copy and distribution. Please check the links below and undelete that article. I've read the speedy delete rules of Wikipedia and such free contents are not subject to removal from Wikipedia.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/

please click on website policies button below the above page to see:

http://energy.gov/about-us/web-policies

please read the paragraph "Copyright, Restrictions and Permissions Notice"

Thank you for your time

Aryan Shahabian (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aryan Shahabian: There are several problems with that article. I did look at the the policies page which on the one hand says "government information at DOA websites is in the public domain". Sounds clear enough but it then goes on to say "it is requested that in any subsequent use the Department of Energy be given appropriate acknowledgment". That's not public domain that's closer to a CC–BY license. Or maybe not because it says requested not required. Or maybe it is because when the government says requested, that sometimes means more than just a polite request.
They clearly state that images "may be used without permission". But then they ask to credit "US Department of Energy" as the source. Again, they make one statement about the license and then they make a contradictory statement.
They note that the website might include "documents, illustrations, photographs or other information resources contributed to license by the private individuals…" And state that use of that material may require the written permission of the copyright owners. Do we know for sure that the material you copied does not fall under that clause?
Beyond copyright issues, you have plagiarized. Generally speaking, text in Wikipedia articles should be referenced but written in your own words. If it is an exact copy it should be in quotes. There are some exceptions such as material copied from early encyclopedias but in those cases we require a template noting that the material is copied in part or in whole from another source.
An additional problem is that the copied material may not be neutral point of view. It is 100% the product of a particular entity with a particular point of view. We expect articles to be neutral and to provide a balanced discussion not just the view of one particular entity.
I may have erred in simply deleting it for copyright reasons when there are a whole list of problems with the article, but it seems silly to restore it and then re-delete with the complete list.
If you disagree with my assessment about the copyright, I urge you to raise the question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. It is a close call, and other copyright experts may conclude that is acceptable to use the material from purely a copyright standpoint. But I want to see a consensus of editors on that point, and then we can discuss the other problems.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
An additional question is whether the subject meets notability standards. Simply because the US government funds a software project doesn't automatically make it notable. The subject must be discussed in multiple independent sources. A single source, which is not independent, does not come close to meeting that standard.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 

13:36, 18 March 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Larry Embury (G 13 (TW))

He was alive at the time and since has passed away [1] Please help recover lost work. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Davidson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Davidson:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/fox-theater-organist-goes-unclaimed-three-weeks-after-death/153469139

WP:N

Hi Sphilbrick, I came across WP:N and noticed you had deleted it, apparently through Twinkle on G13 grounds, which doesn't make sense. I looked over your blog log and saw a few other things at the same time that didn't fit the G13 criterion: User:Omni Flames and Wikipedia:VRS aren't article content, and a few pages in article space were deleted as well, though perhaps they were AfC runarounds? I initially feared a compromised account, but it looks like you went back to normal business after that. Have I misunderstood? --BDD (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@BDD: When I work on deletions, I normally identify a batch of things to work on (e.g. G 13) then use an option in my browser which allows me to right-click highlight a number of articles and open them all. Normally, this works quite well. However, I've noticed that if I am slow at selecting the group of articles, while I am selecting them pop-ups may appear and sometimes the selection include some articles I did not intend to include. I then typically review each article in order to make sure it qualifies, and occasionally note a couple of tabs that do not belong. In those cases I usually close those tabs. However, if I accidentally deleted something that way, it would not be tagged as twinkle. I know this happened once or twice and I restored them but that doesn't seem to be the issue here. I use the twinkle option to do a delete batch after checking them all, but that step should only list the eligible ones not the mistaken open ones. I'm sure it must be related but I'm not quite figuring out how it could have happened. I do see the deletion in the log so I'm not trying to pretend it didn't happen. I do a lot of G 13 deletions, so I will watch next time to see if I can see what is going wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am now more puzzled than ever. At the same time I deleted nine legitimate G 13's, I also deleted the following:

I don't see any commonality, so I'm unclear why Those pages would've been included in the twinkle selection. I will now pay closer attention to the count of the items in the category and make sure that matches the count in the batch list to help ensure this doesn't happen again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad I said something, then. I didn't want to throw around heavy accusations if you knew more than I did, but it sounds like everything is fine now. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you said something (and AGF'd). I restored the remainder of the mistakes, which I would not have noticed had you not commented. I am in the process of adding a request for a Twinkle change to help elininate this in the future.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: and @BDD: Actually, I do see something similar about those pages. I was tagging some G13s last night and so my username would've appeared on the "this page was last edited by...", which is probably how my user page got deleted. The 3 Wikipedia pages you listed are commonly linked in AFC decline summaries. And as for the 4 other pages, I reckon if you went through the drafts you deleted you would find links to those pages. Of course, that doesn't explain why the pages were deleted, but I think it explains why those pages in particular were deleted. Omni Flames (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. Thanks for commenting. I'm still not quite sure why the pages were on the list to be deleted, but you have provided an important piece of the puzzle - before your comment, I didn't see anything in common.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

  • New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
  • Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
  • New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Hi Sphilbrick. Following on from this CfD, I notice you deleted all the categories, per the outcome. I've just spotted that Category:1979 crime films was not included in the original nomination (my mistake - not bad seeing as how many cats were nominated!) Please could you do the same with this one? Let me know if this is an issue and I'll relist it at CfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: By the same, I assume you mean delete. However, it is not empty. Normally, the entries gave been removed or redirected before deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
After looking at the CfD discussion, I see that the intention was to merge into decades categories. I see that the entry in that category is not yet in Category:1970s crime films, so that part needs to be done. While I could do it I'd prefer that it were done by someone who has worked on the others to make sure I don't miss a step, then I will be happy to remove the cat.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No worries - I've upmerged the article in question and tagged the cat as empty. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Thanks, cat now deleted--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Tim Metcalfe.jpg

As I cannot see the revision-deleted version, I can't tell which is better, but I would recommend reverting to the previous/original revision, as the latest version was uploaded by TVAddict2012 who is a confirmed and blocked sockpuppet, and as far as I can see most of their other image-related edits have been reverted. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The newer one is definitely better, but I've reverted to the one uploaded by a non-blocked user.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You might want to delete the earlier revision even though it is identical, just to stop tbe bot from adding {{subst:orfurrev}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply to an overdue speedy delete

Hello,

Interestingly, the Admin board closed out that discussion at the same time I was writing - probably one of the best replies ever! Now the Admin board will never see it! OK, it's probably not anything like that :>). Anyway, in regards to your wondering why I said speedy deletes for hoaxes are dealt with quickly, here is what I wrote:

@Sphilbrick: I'm thinking that I read about it somewhere, maybe when reading about deletions in general. The concern being hoaxes can cause problems by existing on the Wikipedia platform with inaccurate or bad information, and also in terms of BLP - disparaging a person and the like. In fact, in this instance and in retrospect, this hoax appeared to be aimed at a particular person because a name and a photo (a digital image) was included. At least some of the language was bleeped swearing such as the bleeped "f" word. I'm guessing this was on par with vandalism. This wasn't the same as cobbling together false information and passing it off; examples of which are mentioned in this article: Reliability of Wikipedia. In any case, it makes sense to me that hoaxes should be acted upon as soon as possible. I'll see if I can find where I read it. Thanks for asking (because maybe it is good to know). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: One thing that occurs to me is the possibility that use our discussion about why I hope the prior discussion was about why a hoax should qualify as a CSD as opposed to an AFD. Perhaps it was a rationale that we shouldn't wait seven days to go through the full AFD process for a hoax and should take care of it in the shorter time frame of CSD.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Potential revdel since you're at your keyboard...

Kindly look at Alan Sugar, revision no. 726547156 by IP 86....112 (diff: [2]), June 22, 2016 at 14:48 my time (U.S. Pacific time [viva Las Vegas!]...). You may think it's too silly but I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume you are down with that. Thanks for looking at this; I was prowling the RC log for admins doing stuff and that's how I got here. Cheers - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: I agree.  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Much obliged. Nice to "meet" you, finally! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Glad I could help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_68&oldid=1084154504"