User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Whale populations

Hi, Sphilbrick!

I followed a redlink for List of cetaceans by population, and found that there has been an article, which you deleted speedily in September 2015. There now are a bunch of redlinks to this article, mainly since it has been included in the navbox Template:Mammals by population, right from its creation in December 2012. Among the douzin redlinks, there is one from Lists of mammals by population, where some cetaceans are discussed as the first example. I think the creation of these redlinks was an unhappy effect of your deletion.

You deleted by criterion A10. How "recent" was the deleted article? Did there exist a version of List of cetaceans by population already from around the time the navbox was created, or was it added much later? Of course, if the deleted article went back as far as to 2012 or 2013, then deleting by reference to A10 could be considered as a mistake, and simply be reversed. On the other hand, if it was created just a couple of days before your deletion, then A10 might be rather appropriate.

Actually and factually, the lists by population probably in general could be considered as duplicates of some other lists, to the extent that they only comprise the sizes of the global poulations of each species. Thus, you could argue that a proper "list of cetaceans by populations" preferrably also should list separate populations in e. g. the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, and not just the estimated world total; and you may question the whole value of separate lists by populations. However, IMHO, such a discussion would not involve speedy deletions, but rather some more far-reaching proposals for the organisation of these lists since three and a half year; and the biology editors should be alerted of it. (The list you removed was classified of "mid importance" in WP:WikiProject Mammals/Assessment; and so are the similar list you left. They make up the greater part of the "mid class importance articles of list type" in the assessment table.)

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@JoergenB: The article was asserted to be similar to List_of_cetaceans. If you would like to confirm whether this was a valid conclusion - I'll be happy to restore the deleted version to a user sub-page, and if it deserves to remain, we can do that. Let me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the deleted article was created in 2012, as a split off from Lists of mammals by population.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well, I'd like to see it, possibly as a user subpage.

However, I do not think speedy deletion by WP:A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic) was appropriate, if the article was created in 2012, as you say. I'm sure that you are better than I am in understanding how this policy usually is interpreted; but the policy seems to be very explicit in only being applicable for "recently created articles", and I would be surprised if these include articles created well over 2 years before the deletion. If you agree with me, I think that the most reasonable option is simply to restore the article under its old name.

If you wish, you then could suggest a deletion, merge, or redirect in a more conventional manner. JoergenB (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is now at User:JoergenB/List_of_cetaceans. Let me know what you think should be done with it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you moved the actual page List of cetaceans (a featured and uncontroversal existing article) to be a subpage of mine, instead of List of cetaceans by population. JoergenB (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I now moved the featured article back to its proper place. (I happened to create two redirs in the process: User:JoergenB/List of cetaceans and User:List of cetaceans. Please delete them!) JoergenB (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried moving the correct page. I wish you had let me undo my error, it would have been easier to fix.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for "the idiocy"... I was not sure whether you still were there, or off for the night. JoergenB (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't assume that was directed at you. :)--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I correctly identified the deleted article to restore, clicked the button to start the restore process, added the reason, and thought I clicked on the "restore" button. After a distraction, I returned to too many open tabs, and began the move process...on the wrong tab. My "restore" button is still waiting to be pushed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, anyhow, you succeeded to make it visible as User:JoergenB/List of cetaceans by population; thanks!

@Dunkleosteus77: I do not think that the article List of cretaceans by population (Locbp) should have been suggested for speedy deletion as per WP:A10. The article was not at all "recently created", and it did have a substantial history. A10 simply should not be applied in such cases.

On the other hand, I can see why both you and Sphilbrick considered the article as an unnecessary duplicate. Superficially, most of the data, and the pictures, are included in or surpassed by those in List of cetaceans (Loc). Thus it might be tempting to replace the article content by a redir. (In order not to break the history, and nor the navbox and other references to Locbp, I think that just deleting it by some other criterion would be a bad idea.)

However, a more careful look at the tables show that those in Locbp are not the same as those in Loc. Both contain material not contained in the other. Locbp contains some (very incomplete) discussion of the population trends, but also some comments on whether one in some cases should recognise several isolated populations for the same whale species. This is absent from Loc, which instead contains "ranges"/"distribution" maps of the species, and information on the typical sizes of its individuals.

Locbp also contains a navbox, categories, and an introduction, which clearly places it as one of the bunch of Category:Lists by population (non-human) articles. All this would be lost, if it is just replaced by a redir to Loc. Theoretically, it should be possible to merge the articles (and that might make updating easier). However, I think that this would make the tables in Loc a bit overloaded.

Therefore, my first hand recommendation is to restore Locbp with its old name and content, but to add explicit cross references between it and Loc (in both direction). In second hand, a merge could be contemplated. JoergenB (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Locbp was incomplete however. Also, the most descriptive thing is said about population was "minimal" or "may have increased" (except for killer whales which is literally copy/pasted from Loc). Loc says all of this descriptive information in the notes, which are far more descriptive than Locbp. The Locbp article was essentially a less descriptive duplicate of Loc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Locbp is more incomplete than Loc; it is missing more species. I do not agree that "Loc says all this descriptive information in the notes", if you mean the discussion of population splits and population changes. Please read the content in the Locbp comment column once more! I cannot find the following information abot the north sea right whale in Loc:

"Estimates are for the Northwest Atlantic population only; the existence of a separate Northeast population is debated."

I also cannot find this about the blue whale:

"3-11% of the population in 1911. Before whaling, the largest population was in the Antarctic, numbering approximately 239,000 (range 202,000 to 311,000)."

And so on, and so forth. Can you find these claims in Loc? If not, you have to admit that Locbp contains things not contained in Loc - also apart from the population size trend arrows. JoergenB (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Mueller-Hinton agar

Hello there! I noticed your recent edit to Mueller-Hinton agar but I'm not quite sure I understood your message. The sentence: "Knowledgeable person is contact the Wikimedia pointing out the problem. We are in discussion about how best to address it..." was particularly unclear to me. Did someone contact you to point out the problem? And you're discussing with that person how to address the potentially-incorrect recipe? Or did you contact someone else because you were worried about the recipe? Any clarification would be much appreciated. Perhaps this is just an autocorrect error or something. Anyway, I'd be happy to poke around the library to find a definitive recipe if you're suspicious of the one there. I've never made the stuff so I have no idea what the regular proportions are. Thanks for pointing out a potential problem! Ajpolino (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: I am an OTRS agent, which includes fielding emails sent in to the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia received an email from a person - I think a professor, who pointed out that one of the values seemed wrong. I tracked down the reference. Unfortunately, the values in the reference sort of support the article, but other sources (subsequently linked in the talk page) disagree. The additional complication is that all sources I have seen express the amounts in grams per liter, while the article made a conversion to percentage. I'm about to retire for the evening, but I would love to have some help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahh ok that makes sense. This is, perhaps, more up my alley. If you put it on the back burner for a couple days, I'll see if I can dig up something reliable and agreeable and report back. Thanks for pointing that out. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I responded at the article talk page, thanks in advance for pitching in. I feel certain the article needs a correction, but I'd rather someone who knows the subject matter better make the actual edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Input requested on WNBA draft templates

Hello- Trying to reach consensus on how many rounds should be displayed on yearly WNBA draft templates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball/Archives/2020/April#WNBA draft templates. This discussion could use more and broader input to get to a guideline. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete and move all revisions of this page

The page Talk:Upstairs, Downstairs Bears has been deleted twice, most recently by yourself. IIRC, it was not a talk page but an attempt to start an article on the subject, albeit in the wrong namespace. Please undelete the page and move it over the existing redirect; whether a history merge is needed is left up to you as I can just recreate the redirect afterwards. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mdrnpndr:  Done I restored it and moved it to Draft:Upstairs,_Downstairs_Bears. I didn't move it to article space because it is not ready.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

List of international goals

Hi Sphilbrick. May I ask why you deleted a bunch of list of international goals lists without discussion? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean articles like List of international goals scored by Sándor Kocsis? If so, they were created by a blocked user, so deleted as CSD g5.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, like those lists. So basically if an article was created by a blocked user, they need to be deleted? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is "yes". longer answer to follow>--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD G5:

"To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion."

"To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban. Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic."

So, since you must of looked into the said user who created it since you deleted it, was his block pertaining to the creation of these pages? Because if not, it would fall under the first quotation and should not be deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It is quite understandable that one might see an acceptable article - one that provides useful information for readers, and wonder why it should be removed from Wikipedia simply because the editor was blocked or banned at the time of the article creation. The answer is related to the reason we find the need to block or ban an editor.

If an editor is generally contributing positively, then they are a net benefit to the goal of expanding the encyclopedia. If they occasionally make an error which requires some other editor to cease what they were doing and revert and/or explain the error, we accept this as a normal part of the process. However, if the editor continues with problematic edits, and refuses to modify their behavior, then they become a net detriment to the project, even if some of their edits are productive. The community might respond with a block, which is a serious step intended to get their attention and focus on the need to stop problematic behavior. If blocks are insufficient, we may ban the editor which means, despite the possibility of some positive contributions, the editor is a net drain on the project, and we are literally better off if they do not contribute at all. One might argue that if some edits are bad and some are good, we should accept the good ones and remove or revert the bad ones, but this requires scarce resources, which are diverted from productive edits. There is literally no point in banning or blocking is we are willing to review every edit, accept ones that are fine, and reject those that are bad. If we accept that problematic editors occasionally need to be blocked or banned, we subvert the goal of the ban or block if we decide to accept edits performed in violation of the ban or block. Why on earth should any such editor reform? They should just do whatever they want, and we will expend resources tracking their edits. For this reason, we often delete an article created by such a user, on the argument that the only way to get them to contribute productively is to change their behavior, and if they realize that their contributions are all removed, even positive ones, they will either reform or give up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To answer your specific question, the editor was indef blocked on 24 January 2016, and the article I deleted was created 17 March 2016, i.e. after the block. The qualification about topic is intended to cover the possibility that the editor is topic-banned form writing about Topic X, while this article is about Topic Y. That doesn't apply here, as it wasn't a topic ban. It was a block, for socking, which covers all topics.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I get what you're saying that we wouldn't have the time to go through all their contributions to sift through the good and the bad, so it is "better off" to just delete them all. Honestly, the only list you deleted in which I cared about was List of international goals scored by Luigi Riva, as the user (I think his name was Cristiano.. something) left the article half complete, and I completed the rest which took a decent amount of time. Would there be any way to get that one back? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The main part of that article is the table, which is a simple list and probably not subject to copyright. That material is here. You might copy that, and reconstruct the article. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick, however that was without my work. That was only his half complete article. Luigi Riva actually scored 35 goals. Is it possible for you to come up with that table? It should be the full table like how the article sat before deleted. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Try now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses, you've been a great help! Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears you no longer need the sandbox I created, so I will delete it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

G6 Neelix criteria question

Hello there.

I have a question about deleting redirects under the temporary G6 rationale for Neelix redirects.

My question is in this statement found here: "if the reviewing admin reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause". I am not an admin. Can I nominate Neelix redirects under G6 even though I'm not an admin? Or do I keep nominating them at RFD?

Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: My reading of that statement is that you can nominate them as G6. Please make sure to include the word "Neelix" in the deletion rationale so that it will show up in the actual deletion. I believe the reference to admin means that if an admin were reviewing a redirect they could to sending it to RfD.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Okay. A follow up question I have, is how to nominate them via Twinkle. The only G6 that I see that might be it is "housekeeping". But this falls under technical decisions. Is it the same thing? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the keepers of Twinkle added that option, and I wouldn't even request it as it is temporary, albeit going to take some time. I'd pick that, and then include "Neelix" in the rationale. If you planned on doing a large number, feel free to ping me, with the caveat that I am out of town until Friday, starting soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Sure thing. I'll be using G6 when I'm sure, and RFD when I'm not sure. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Western Power logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Western Power logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think bot may be mistaken.Oddly, not--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OTRS

Dang. I feel like such a lightweight. Can you please look at ticket # 2016051510012536? Can we ask to have a revdel done on that type of material? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I also have done something where I have become the "owner" of articles I simply looked at. What did I do wrong? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Color me puzzled. I tried reproducing, using the official Wikipedia app, and could not. Obviously, they did not dream up that screenshot, but I'm not sure how it was done. Unfortunately, I am leaving for Baltimore shortly, so not able to research. Did you manage to reproduce?--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

One additional thought - I wonder if the screen shot which was attached as created before the deletion. I first thought he was showing us a current view. I am now thinking that the concern is that the search shows the history of the deleiton, and they may be unhaopooy that it makes reference to "not indicate the importance or significance". If so, I think rev-deling that would be a big deal, if even possible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi - Two things. If you type in the name of the article, it tells you none exists, but you can click on it to create the article, and that's when you get the stuff about importance or significance. I also thought rev-deling would not be appropriate, similar to us not removing cited material simply because the article's subject doesn't like the light it shines on them. Second - color me stupid, I didn't even see the attachment, I simply assumed he was talking about what I just discussed. That screen shot looks like it comes from a browser, which is still displaying a portion of the now deleted page. And that's something we have absolutely no control over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Peter Lipman

I had been working on Draft:Peter Lipman, and had just realised that my edits made G13 no longer applicable and was about to remove the tag, when you deleted it under G13 anyway. Camn you please restore it? Maproom (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Maproom (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Gregory Watson

Gregory Watson should not have been speedy deleted. It was a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Watson and because information from the old article was merged into Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution the history needs to be kept for attribution. The new draft merely recreates the stub that fails WP:ONEEVENT. Jonathunder (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Restored. --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonathunder ( and Sphilbrick) - I was the one who requested the speedy. There was an article at AfC, and when I clicked on the history, no deletion record came up. Either of you know a reason why that happened? It's one of the checks I use at AfC. All that occurred is that I was told that there was a redirect. My apologies for creating work for you guys, but there was no indication that this had been deleted previously. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FTR, I am traveling, and did not have the time to research what happened, so decided the best course was to restore and sort it out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. WP:ANI#Removal of userpage polemics Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

CSD

Thanks for doing the admin work over at CSD. It must be as boring for you as it is for me. I seem lately to have been taking the flak for Neelix' creations which I genuinely believe were made in good faith before the search engine worked and I know how rubbish it used to be. I don't want any special pleading because there is a case at WP:ANI#SimonTrew this is in no way a WP:CANVASS but I do notice and I just wanted to say thanks. A thank you never hurt anyone in this world. That was what I was taught. I do notice but obviously cannot say thanks to every single one. You can award yourself the Barnstar of Unnecessary Diligence or something I have never worked out how to do those barnstars. Si Trew (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you are too kind but if you're going to err, that's the direction to err. I don't know the exact history but my guess is that Neelix started with good faith creation of redirects, but then just carried it way too far. I'm very sorry that you had to take some flack for what was clearly a good faith effort to clean up a mess.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Erring on the side of caution don't work, erring on the side of WP:BOLD don't work. Together as a collaborative effort to improve the encylopaedia we will get through them. Together, that is what it is all about. I thought it used to say that somewhere. I seem to remember that. All I can do is kinda "feed" them to CSD or RfD as I see fit, I also take a lot as keep and rcat them, they are not all nonsense. In the closing discussion with Neelix that user maintained and I actually believe him that he never used any automated tools. I think he was a quick typist like me and created a lot without really thinking. I would welcome him back any day and he has never been banned he is only banned from creating redirects. I believe because of the redirects he is a god's honest christian (I am not) and must have had a lot of repentance to God or Christ or whatever you repent to, the vicar. He has served his penance. I forgive him as the Bible says well Christ says and I forgave him the day these came to light. There is no point in blaming people for things that gets you nowhere whether you are Chirstian Muslim Taoist Buddist whatever. All we need to do now is work. When I say "neelix redirect" or whatever I am not blaming him it is shorthand so that people like you at CSD can make a quick decision. I would shake his hand any day and say thank you for trying to make the encylopaedia better, I really would. Lots of his redirects do make the encylopaedia better.

You mucked up, so what, show me a man who has never made a mistake in his life and I will show you a liar. That is not from the bible that is from me. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC concerning maintenance tags

There already is a Help talk:Maintenance template removal, being implemented before we have a guideline on when to post the taq. The problem I see is Twinkle editors drive-by tagging and then going to war when their undocumented concerns are not addressed. Because edit summaries like "Added POV tag (TW)" without opening a talk page is more than enough information, and the editor should come groveling at their feet, asking what's wrong with the content. I think the first step is to slow some of these opinionated TW users down, and force them to choose their battles more carefully.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 04:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@009o9:Sorry, I was pinged immediately below the link to Help talk:Maintenance template removal. I have spent a fair bit of time on that issue, and read the subject line too quickly; I saw "Subject: Promote the essay to Guideline" and missed that it was talking about a different essay.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, the shortcut for the essay is under discussion is WP:TAGGING, I guess I should mention the aka. I had already read and commented on your proposal in Meta. I think we need a published rules before we try to build an app. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 14:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment on deletion of talk page for InstallAware

Hi Sphilbrick. I recently added a comment on the talk page for InstallAware. I came to the page because of the recent controversy and news about the InstallAware Software page being deleted. (Seems mixed on both sides - IA seem to have made the page themselves, and it read largely like an advertisement. OTOH the most recent revisions did show notability, and it is certainly well-known and used software.) I commented that with more detail in the talk page, thinking that an article on the software not the company would be better and offering to write a new article, but unfortunately the talk was deleted, not replied to.

Would you mind explaining why please? (I've edited Wikipedia for over a decade, but only recently through an actual user account, and don't know the ins and outs well enough. I'm sure there's a good reason. I had just expected / hoped for a reply, not a delete, to the discussion.)

The larger question is: since the software does exist and is notable, can I write a new article for it? I'm not affiliated with the company, but I have used the software, so can write a neutral, sourced article.

Vintagedavem (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)vintagedavem

@Vintagedavem: As mentioned here there's a draft in progress here : Draft:InstallAware_Software. I agree it makes most sense to work on improving that draft.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

My page got deleted

My profile page got deleted and it said it was you, why did you delete it? TheSoccerBoy (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@TheSoccerBoy: It's a fair question. I've looked and do not see why, so it may have been a misclick. Sorry - I've restored it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

After looking more, I see that you created some articles that were further developed by an editor who has been banned, and some of those were deleted - you may have been inadvertently caught in the cleanup. That doesn't make it right, but it wasn't an intentional removal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The revisions of TheSoccerBoy before 21 February 2016 were suppressed by an oversighter. That page had two patrol log entries with no move log entry saying "(over a redirect )without leaving a redirect" or deletion log entry between them. Since Sphilbrick is only an administrator, not an oversighter, (s)he cannot tell which oversighter actually deleted the earlier revisions before the recreation that is patrolled by MYS77 at 14:24 UTC on 12 March 2016. 24.205.8.104 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please undelete this page

Hello,,

I am not sure how this works but can you please undelete this page : LU SIERRA ... It was from my drafts and i wanted to update it without having to redo the entire article.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemee215 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meemee215:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you undelete Draft:IStreamPlanet so I can update it?

Hi! I saw that you recently Draft:IStreamPlanet due to inactivity (which is totally fair). I was actually intentionally waiting for new press coverage so I could update the article in line with Wikipedia's submission guidelines. Would you mind restoring the draft so I could update it without having to start from scratch? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.132 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@157.166.167.132:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

quick check am I going totally mad

Is it just I have a very out of date cache but everything on User:Anomie/Neelix list number four is blue. Now I swear some of those were deleted. Not all of them I don't win every time or expect to. Sometimes my cache is very out of date and I can't kinda purge cache it is up the line somewhere where it is cached. At least some of them should be red I think but all of them are blue. If you are around can you take a quick check is it just my ISP? (You just deleted one of mine so I guess you are around) Some should be red with consensus. I'll take one of the other lists but this seems a bit odd to me. Probably just my ISP. Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I just glanced, but they all look blue. I didn't see any I recall deleting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

There are other wikignomes in the background who take them off the list once they have gone for deletion so that is probably all it was. I just wanted a second check in case someone had been restoring them because it has been known for editors who think that my kinda trogging through the list is some kind of personal vendetta against Neelix even though I believe that Neelix created these in good faith when the search engine was not so good, but now a lot are useless or harmful to the search engine, and I would shake Neelix' hand any day as he was trying to make the encylopaedia better. Thanks for making the check. I am just trogging through the list as you know so as I do that I can't kinda amend the list or I would lose my place so probably another editor took them off as having been done. Technically I am supposed to just mark them as deleted and so on but I can't do everything at once, I imagine another wikignome in the background tidied the list. No worries. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)