User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Funny invoving your name

I got a kick out of this and you might too. I'm on the commuter bus to my University and just saw a Jeep zoom by with the license plate SPHLBRK. Made me chuckle. Hope you have a great day! Technical 13 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. For all I know, it is a distant relative. I actually lived in Maine much of my life, although most of my relatives are from New Hampshire.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that Jeep owner borrowed that slogan, There's no "I" in SPHLBRCK--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions.
Message added 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force article for review

Hi Sphillbrick, I found your name on the list of participants at WikiProject Environment/Climate Change task force and was wondering if you had a few minutes to look at a draft I've prepared for an article that falls under the scope of this task force: The Climate Reality Project?

I have rewritten this article on behalf of The Climate Reality Project and for that reason will avoid all direct edits to the article. I have instead placed my revised draft in my user space for editors to review.

The more detailed note on the Talk page explains several issues with the current version I have aimed to address. I've also proposed merging in the two articles on the organizations that joined to form The Climate Reality Project.

Hopefully reaching out to you on your Talk page is OK; I've tried posting at several WikiProjects and with an editor who was previously involved in editing the page, but haven't had much success yet. If you know of someone who might be interested in reviewing this, or a WikiProject I might not have thought of, please let me know. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've started taking a look. One editor worth contacting is NewsAndEventsGuy who generally seems like a sensible and clueful editor. William M. Connolley also has a lot of subject matter knowledge. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (blush) Thanks for the very nice compliment, Sphilbrick! I'll look also when I get a chance, though I may not come up for air until Friday eve. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Sphilbrick, just wanted to let you know I've replied to you over on my draft's Talk page where you left your comments yesterday. And thanks in advance for your review of the draft, NewsAndEventsGuy. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Responded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if you haven't seen, I've made some edits to my draft based on our discussion and responded to you on my draft's talk page again. Let me know if you have any further thoughts / concerns or if you think this draft is ready to move live. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

16912 Rhiannon I think it is worth going ahead. (I did look at New and Event Guys comments, and to be honest, I'm not following.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, it looks like NAEG left another message on the draft's Talk page saying that he had no further comments. Since you think it is appropriate to move forward with this draft would you be able to update the current version and redirect the outdated articles to this page? Even with your approval I'd like to avoid editing this page directly. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

COI  Done BTW, you might be interested to know that I added a 17KW solar system to my house last month.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Your help is very much appreciated. And good for you with the solar power system! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation

Did you delete this redirect accidentally, or did you mean to do that? I think it was an accident, but I thought I'd ask to make sure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the instructions left by Hasteur at: Wikipedia_talk:AFC#Additional_examples and must have identified the wrong thing to delete. Sorry it was a hectic few minutes, and I screwed up. Thanks for asking so politely.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

McDowell County close paraphrase

Hey there, indeed, it was a nail biter to watch that game....The McDowell County WV hisyory section is a close paraphrase to a WV poli sci web page that has since been retired from the active web, BUT can still be found here. I even went so far as to print a copy and then read the Wiki article. It was, rather bad. So, I have attempted to rework that section by using my home library and some web sources. My guess at this point is, I can redo the section on History, OR the part that is a close paraphrase or copy can be removed. HOWEVER, that would cause the article to lose some context. In short a blurb or 2 that would not have much sense. The only reason, I caught the close paraphrasing was that when I was gertting the WV County list to FL status, which it now is (thanks to alot of people) THAT was a source that I did use, UNTIL I decided, it would be better to take a scholarly approach and use texts that are out there. Let me know how you want to proceed. Coal town guy (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Coal town guy, if you can take the time to rewrite, that would be the ideal approach. When I am reviewing the hundreds of items in WP:CP, I sometimes remove material that is too close to an original, and that sometimes leaves the remaining material a little choppy, or out of context. Obviously, it would be better if I reread all the sources, and improved the section, and I do on occasion, but I can't do that for every one that I clean. I'm always happy when I see a competent and knowledgeable editor who can do a better job, and, as in your case, may have access to the right sources. There's no rush of course, but if you drop me a note if you do this, I'll take a look and close one more item off the list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will make that the next thing I do then. I am very glad someone went to the effort to have the history, BUT, its a tad over the top to go to the extreme that was there. Shame too. Mineral County would be one to look at as well BUT for different reasons. The editors have attempted to list county functions, which, by the WV Constitution and WV state code, AINT SO. There could be a political history section with a description of the debate, which is swell, but that would be ALOT of work.......I have had to do some corrections there as well as to accuracy...sad sad sadCoal town guy (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WOW, I have been delayed. My mother has started her journey into Alzheimers and thus, as the family historian, I have to record her now before she cant recall anything. That means she is the priority for historical research now, and I will get to the history section after that. We are 2 of the 13 left from our WV town and so, I think for preservation sake, I have to get to her first. I have NOT however forgotten, and YES, I was able to get some pics of the Welch Historical area in McDowell ready as well. Many thanksCoal town guy (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear the news Coal town guy, but your priorities are right. Wikipedia can wait. Thanks for letting me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to be sorry at all. We have discovered that a benefit to her loss of memory is that we could have a horrible argument and she would forget...otherwise, yes, our town is really on the verge of becoming extinct, I luckily know a few of the remaining miners and we are trying to rebuild the place virtually before the reality of a reclamation makes it all go away. The place is in Raleigh County WV, near Whitby, West VirginiaCoal town guy (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Author mistake

I, Timothy Bahry, am not the original author of the file Eisenstein prime mistake.jpg. I adapted the already exising image in the article Eisenstein prime. The actual original author of that unadapted file is Fropuff. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Blackbombchu, Sorry, I'm not quite sure why you are telling me this. I vaguely (very vaguely) recall someone with a complaint about the image, but I don;t recall much more. Are you requesting some action? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Remember, you replied back to me from info-en@wikimedia.org a long time ago before I had a Wikipedia account and I replied back to have you upload that image for me because I didn't know how then and now I know how. I noticed that on the wikimedia commons file for that image you uploaded for me, it looked like I was taking credit for that image being completely my own work when what really happened is I took an already exising wikimedia file by Fropuff and modified it and emailed it to you to upload. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. I see that the image credits Fropuff, so am I correct, that this is a courtesy comment, and no action is needed?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it seems to me like it might be against the Wikimedia Commons terms and services to list the wrong author, but I don't know the terms and services that well. It's not so bad because I didn't upload it myself and write that it was my own work. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify what action, if any, you are requesting. You said Fropuff is the author, and that is who is listed, so I'm not catching your point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant you should change the author to saying Fropuff. I didn't write that directly before because I was instead thinking you should learn the terms and services of Wikimedia commons to see if it's necessary to change the author. 99.226.170.197 (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but the image list the author as Fropuff and it sounds like you are requesting that I change it to Fropuff. Can you see why I'm confused?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant it should be changed in the modified version of the file in the Eisenstein prime talk page, not the unmodified version in the main article. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I finally understand. Why can't you make the change?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I finally made the change now that you gave me the OK to do so. I just didn't absolutely know for sure that it wasn't a change on your own page that you didn't want made. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, got it thanks. Sorry this took so long, but all good now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Ghana student reading with Worldreader CoFounder David Risher.jpg

This file has no attribution. Is this correct? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2 The uploader failed to fill out the summary template. I filled it out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you add a copyright tag to File:Dilith Jayaweera.JPG? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I took a few months off from OTRS, and am obviously rusty.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi, at Talk:Global warming you made a recent comment that starts with "I don't think it is wise to be a denialist, but that's your call." Since that's indented under a comment by myself, it sounds like the "your call" is directed at me. If that is the case, would you mind sharing what makes you think I'm into Climate change denial? If you meant to direct your comment at the OP then I apologize for misinterpreting. The question about the numbers in the graphic is interesting, and I intend to follow up a bit since the image is well used. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was attempting a small joke, but I see how the indentation could be confusing, so I fixed it. I do hope you will look into the numbers. That graphic is used in many places but I have found any place where anyone asked about the calculations. I hope I am missing something simple, but I do not yet see it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was pretty sure I wasn't reading it right! I have finished my number check and left a reply at the article talk page. Round off error, is my best guess. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This is for your efforts on behalf of crediting authors of images in accordance with the Creative Commons requirements. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Realms of Trinity

Hello,

The page for Realms of Trinity was deleted a while ago, as I understand for advertising reasons. I've tried to improve on the article in my user subspace: User:Thea186/Realms_of_Trinity. Would you mind taking a look?

Happy Halloween! Thea186 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my review would be a good use of time. It appears to be a video game a subject about which I know next to nothing. Sorry, but there are thousands of editors with more interest and skill in that subject.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you were the admin who deleted the article, and there was a mention on the subject here. I'm not asking for a full review; I just want to know if, as is, it qualifies for a speedy deletion. Thea186 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete in its present state, based upon my cursory review. But I sense you are looking for someone to say it is fine. I can't say that. The earlier version wasn't fine, this is better. Is it good enough? I don't know, sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

TheGeneralUser has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Hi Sphilbrick! Wishing you a very happy Halloween :-) TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! You too.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bluegreen Corporation Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bluegreen Corporation Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I simply uploaded per OTRS request. Not sure why it isn't used.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Equitymaster

Dear Sphilbrick: Back in September, I added a reflist to this article so that I could see the reference. Since then I have had an opinion from Wikiproject Business that the references aren't very extensive and that there aren't more recent ones to be found on line. Is it possible to delete it with G13 in spite of my edits? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Anne Delong My opinion is not to. I might feel differently about a bot or bot like edit (e.g.adding a cat). I understand your position as an AfC volunteer, but it raises questions about classes of editors (despite my first comment), that leave me uneasy. I prefer to keep our "no edit for six months" cleaner, at most "no substantive edits for six months".--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay; it's not doing any harm where it is. Thanks anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

G13

Did you delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Robin Lowe as G14 -- look at the infobox.It does need revision. of course, but even in its present form it would pass AfD.(And Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher R. Seit would certainly meet WP:author.)

I will generally restore all articles on full professors at major universities, since it is so very easy to show them notable. Perhaps it would be simpler not to delete them in the first place.

You mean G13, yes.

A editor made a single edit, then abandoned it. The entire research section is a copyvio, so it could have been deleted as a G12. It's a BLP with zero references. You seriously think that would pass AfD? I don't spend much time there, but if so, something is wrong.

If an editor can't be bothered to make a minimal attempt to address issues, I do not believe it is our responsibility to essentially write an article for them. I have 100 potential biographies of individuals without an article, which have a higher priority than cleaning up someone else's mess. You of course, are free to do so.

I think it is an enormous waste of your valuable time, but it is your time,a ad you can prioritize however you want. However, I am puzzled at the process. Are you reviewing the deletion log to find these? Wouldn't it be better to review them before they are deleted? It would save me time, and I don't think it would make it more time consuming for you. The bot took a month off, which was for other reasons, but one nice thing about the timing is that it gave you time to review upcoming potential deletions. Maybe that's just an assumption on my part, but I'd like to see us handle this efficiently, and looking at articles after they are deleted doesn't sound efficient.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for misreading it

As soon as it was mentioned, I saw my mistake. In fact I had just been thinking about the other editor who made a similar mistake, and criticizing him roundly (in my mind that is, even more so than on the page). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I know you are passionate about the subject, and I know when I get passionate about a subject, I have to watch myself to make sure I AGF. It is easy to say, not also easy to do. You and I are not on exactly the same page on the paid/ Paid advocacy editing, but I am reading your views carefully, so they aren't being ignored, even as I am still wrapping my head around this complex issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Guha

Re: your last note my talk page - did you notice that there are two similarly-titled sections there for the Guha issue? Just for clarity. - Sitush (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sitush I missed the other one, now see it, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

James Chambers new version

Hello SPhilbrick, I have finally had time to re-write / re-phrase an article about James Chambers for submission. How should I submit it? Will you reopen the old article and I just go there and edit it, or should I copy it into this talk page section for you to edit and post? I am not so sure about all of the correct ways for writing syntaxes for in-line citations, etc. Also the photo that was in the original article was a good one. Impressionistic (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Impressionistic, the best thing to do is to start over at the Articles For Creation page:

Wikipedia:Afc

I'm personally not all that familiar with the steps, although I think the process is reasonably well-documented.

If you have some questions about the process, Anne Delong is extremely knowledgeable and helpful (although also busy).

Oh, citations can be tricky. Try looking at Referencing for beginners. If that isn't clear enough, there are editors at the Teahouse who can help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Support!=

Thank you! I am seeing wikipedia I'm a new light! Today's Xtra (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking Forward to Working Again

Thank you for the kind message at my talkpage. I look forward to working with all of you to get things done. Please call on me if I can help with something. JodyB _talk 16:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

abandoned/duplicate pages

Greetings!

I recently ran into some interesting issues when attempting to post my first wikipedia article and was hoping you had some insights to share or advice to give. My article was declined due to it being a duplicate of a declined page you subsequently deleted for abandonment. I have since resubmitted my article under my original page as well as the page you deleted (I resubmitted the former before understanding the abandoned status of the latter) I believe this move may have confused the resubmission process or otherwise been a wikipedia faux pas.

I would greatly appreciate any help you would be willing to give. for more information and links to the pages in question please see the following correspondence I submitted to User:MatthewVanitas

Thanks! Tyler Scott

Hi Matthew,

I recently submitted an article on “Primier Pizza” (now titled Premier Pizza 2) for review to be published on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my submission was declined by yourself due to there already existing a page with a similar or same title. I was referred to the following link, in order that I could request additions and edits to the page, or otherwise contact its author.

Upon following the link I found that the previously existing article had been deleted by User:Sphilbrick due to the page being "abandoned" (I have since submitted my content to the abandoned page). Before doing this however, due to my wiki naivety and because the original page had been deleted, I simply fixed the coding issues and resubmitted my article "Premier Pizza (2)" for review, per available instructions. So I now have the same article pending review under the abandoned page "Premier Pizza" as well as the duplicate (my original submission) now titled "Premier Pizza 2".

As a new user this is a rather confusing situation to be in and I was wondering if there are any other (preferably expedited) resubmission or appeal processes I should be considering, or if there are any other potential issues which may impede the publication of this article (i.e. should I delete one of the submissions, fix anymore coding etc...).

Any help or advice you would be willing to offer would be greatly appreciated.

Best, Tyler Scott

P.S. I will also be sending a copy of this contact to User:Sphilbrick in hopes he may have some insight as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.tw. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not completely following the sequence. I have some thoughts, and will see if I can figure it out. Have a couple other things I need to check first and will return to in in an hour or so.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the sequence looks like to me:

1. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Premier Pizza Originally created 1 February (in user sandbox)
2. Worked on and improved in February
3. Moved from sandbox to AfC in March, then declined as not suitable for main space
4. Abandoned with no edits between March and October
5. Tagged as possible G13 due to lack of activity
6. Deleted as G13 on 24 October
7. Restored on 7 November. Not sure why
8. On same day Premier Pizza (2) also created

The new version has more refs. I haven't looked closely at either, but suspect it is not yet ready for prime time. I think the best thing to do is:

1. Have Tyler.tw. confirm that Premier Pizza (2) is the better version
2. If so, and no one disagrees, I'll delete the original, MatthewVanitas will withdraw the objection on the basis of duplication, and Premier Pizza (2) will continue the process, with a renaming if and when ready for main space.

I urge Tyler.tw. to ask for advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse, as it is unlikely to survive without some work.

Is this OK with you MatthewVanitas? --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbick,

Thank you for the detailed response! I was hoping to have gotten some input from MatthewVanitas by now so we could continue to move forward. However, according to his page he is on :vacation until December 1st. I understand this will delay the plan of action you proposed for continuing my submission along the publication process. It may be just a matter of patience at this point, :however if you have any more advice on navigating this process I would love the help.

Also, I will definitely look into Wikipedia:Teahouse for further information, and would greatly appreciate any input you may have as to the content of my submission.

Thanks!

Tyler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.tw. (talk • contribs) 19:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Tyler.tw., we shouldn't have to wait that long. I can't imagine that MatthewVanitas will object, we'll address that if it happens.

I added a note to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Premier Pizza indicating it is not the best version. I removed the declination on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Premier Pizza (2), so go ahead and work on that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for all the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.tw. (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Traveling man

--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be updating the women's basketball standings, so don't worry about them falling to far behind. The only error I've seen on ESPN's part is that UMKC is part of the WAC, not the Summit League, starting this season. Enjoy your trip. Bigddan11 (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigddan11 I'm back now. Good catch on UMKC, I missed that. I'll try writing to ESPN; I wrote to them last week when they had the wrong winner of a St. Francis (NY) game and they corrected it quickly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I sent a note to ESPN.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Be warned. I was just checking ESPN's standings, and they claim that Northern Kentucky and NJIT haven't played a game yet. I checked both schools websites and updated their records based on their actual results. Northern Kentucky has played 3 games and NJIT 4. I also had told ESPN that they had UMKC under the wrong conference and even provided them their own article link about UMKC moving to the WAC starting this season. They update their site more than most others, but I don't know why they keep having these small errors pop up. And now I find out that Nebraska-Omaha's record is also wrong on ESPN. Just be wary. If you think something might be wrong, click on the team and it'll bring up their schedule and results. Or visit their conference or school website. Bigddan11 (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote to ESPN about the conference problem. I see it is not yet fixed. I'll follow up, and look into those others, as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ty

Thank you, Sphilbrick, for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joe Long (American football)! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Smith scrum 2013.jpg

You inserted an OTRS ticket number, but neither {{PermissionOTRS}} nor {{OTRS received}}. Could you correct the syntax? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Cooley Dooley Doo

Did you mean to say "without an edit summary" here? Regardless, your point was worthy. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, corrected, thanks, and thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair Lawn photo

I have responded/will be responding at the Commons DR page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)