User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

CONCACAF Futsal Championship

1996 CONCACAF Futsal Championship/2000 CONCACAF Futsal Championship/2004 CONCACAF Futsal Championship/ why delet this pages? What was the problem?On what basis are you missing pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usopen705 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any such article. You might glance at discussions above this one, in case they is relevant. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal

Apologies for the removal, I screwed up something during an edit conflict, it would seem. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No biggie, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something. I restored it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleted article "Orlando Roberson"

I sure wish I would have been given time to take action on draft article "Orlando Roberson" before you deleted it. I spent a great deal of time and effort working on it. I hadn't been able to locate it for the past few months so I figured it was gone. Then this morning I got an email saying it was up for deletion but that I could take action. When I tried to take action it said that it was already deleted and there were no tags to remove. Smooth Sailing (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@BillKenny14: Surely you saved an offline copy? What action are you looking for? You haven't identified anything. Are you suggesting that deletion protocols should be modified? If so, how? --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@BillKenny14: I see that you were notified on 8 January, well more than a month ago, that it was going to be deleted, after more than five months without a single edit. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@BillKenny14: I received no notifications in my email and certainly nothing on Wikipedia regarding the article or I would have gladly began working on it again. The only reason I hadn't made any edits is because I couldn't locate it. I looked everywhere for it and couldn't find it. I thought it would be in the sandbox but it wasn't and didn't know exactly where to look after that so I tried a bunch of searches that came up with nothing. I figured something had happened and I didn't save it correctly. Is there no way the article can be retrieved? If I had saved an "offline" copy of the article I wouldn't have asked about why you deleted... no I don't have it saved offline. If it can be retrieved that would be great. It wasn't complete, but I had gathered a lot of information in it that I no longer have direct access to. Smooth Sailing (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I realize that you are relatively new, but the notification went where all notifications belong — on your talk page. Click the link to see your talk page which has 23 notifications including two notifications about Orlando Robertson along with links to it. Yes, it can be restored I restored it for you. It needs a lot of references. Please see Help:Referencing_for_beginners.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's a draft... all of the information is from one source so I will add the reference when I'm finished. Notifications may appear on my talk page... but I get no notifications via email or here on Wikipedia via the "alert" symbol at the top of the page. I had to come here manually to see if you had replied. The notifications at the top of the page reads "0". Thank you. Smooth Sailing (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Asia Masters Athletics Championships

You just deleted this article. I had contested its deletion. You should not have deleted it because it was contested. Please restore the article. A banned user might have created it, poorly, but it is a valid subject and if nothing else, their research and typing can be used if I or someone else chooses to improve upon it. Trackinfo (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: Where did you contest it? You are free to re-create it from scratch, which would help to deny recognition to someone who has violated the rules so egregiously that they have been blocked. Have you read Wikipedia:Deny recognition?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As a minimum, you should restore the article to my sandbox, where I will restore it, in better form to mainspace. Trackinfo (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

No, that defeats the point of Deny, because if you do it properly, you have to save the attribution to the banned or blocked user. I checked the afD and do not see you contesting it. Where did that occur?

The community generally supports the notion of Denying recognition, although some editors disagree. Simply restoring would be to ignore those who support Deny. The second-best approach is to go to WP:DRV, where they have the ability to override Deny. I'm not going to without a consensus. (The best approach, of course, is to start over and write it yourself.)

You do understand, don't you, that you are asking for a restoration of an article which is described as "Terrible article with no sources to prove it's notable". Why?

You do not know me well, but I am incredibly lenient when it comes to restoration. Short of Copyright Violations, and Deny situations, if someone says they want to work on an article, I usually restore it, even when I think they are likely to fail. The fact that I don't want to in this case ought to tell you something. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1) After you speedy an article, you should restore it to a sandbox on request. 2) I am not going to copy that article exactly, but I also do not want to do all that typing of the list of locations from scratch. 3) You have already been out of line by speedy deleting an article when it was contested. That is against the procedure. If you still think it deserves deletion the next step is to take it to AfD. You didn't do that. You are making a unilateral decision. You also do not know me. I have a damned good track record at AfD. While geographically separated from the geographic region, this subject is in my wheelhouse. I've started hundreds of articles and have contributed to thousands. I'll guarantee you, by the time that article has been through AfD, it will be an unquestionable Keep. Lets not go there. I've wasted far too many keystrokes just to get you to follow procedure. Restore to my sandbox and go away. Trackinfo (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Too much to respond to at this time. Let's start with the thrice asked and not yet answered question. Where did you contest it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

??? Did you really just tell me, on my own talk page, to "go away"? Is it your experience that being extremely rude is a successful way to get what you want? If I was inclined to help, that makes it very difficult to do so - it might convince you that such behavior is helpful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you deleted the page, it does not show in my history. I believe it directed to the Talk page of the article in question. Moments later I made this edit to make sure it was properly wikilinked into its relative position within the Masters athletics footer. Restore the talk page you deleted and you will see it. Had I thought there was any chance of someone like you violating procedure and deleting the article I would have taken further steps to clean it up back then. Trackinfo (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Busy watching a basketball game will respond later.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

By later, I mean tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we restart?

You’ve obviously contributed immensely to Wikipedia; I think I have contributed a fair amount as well.

We also have something in common. Both of us have some running experience in our background. Mine is more slow in plodding long-distance — I have a few marathons including the Boston Marathon in my experience, and my most notable achievement (albeit still limited) is a state record in a 24 hour relay race. You’ve got me beat in middle distances — in a mile run I’d be eating your dust if I could get that close.

We are both clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia. We both know that some editors don’t follow all the rules. When that happens, they are typically warned and ideally counseled on how better to contribute. Sometimes that fails, and if an editor refuses to follow the rules, they are blocked or banned or both, until they should no longer contribute, even when that contribution is positive. If we tell someone they are banned or blocked, but then we decide that some contributions are fine, what on earth is the point of the block or ban? The essay WP:DENY makes that point and I support it. However, it is an essay not an un-bendable policy. Some editors think that contributions from blocked editors should still be accepted. If a consensus of editors makes that determination and any specific case, I’ll accept it. Some time ago, I deleted a GA based on the fact that it was contributed by a banned user. The consensus decided to accept it, and I was fine with that decision. What I won’t do is unilaterally decide to ignore the essay. You can use DRV, you can go to ANI, or maybe there’s another venue, but if an article, validly deleted per CSD criteria is deleted, it needs to go to the right venue for restoration. If you think the CSD criteria should be modified, I’m sure you know how to make that request. If you think I mis-read the CSD criteria, please let me know and I will examine it. (That’s one of the reasons I’ve asked multiple times for a link to where you challenge the deletion on the chance that it identified a valid exception, or even a blunder.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I found where you contested it. You said “The event is a valid subject of wikipedia inclusion.” I don’t disagree. However, CSD G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or to categories that may be useful or suitable for merging.. Thus, it has a specific exemption for useful categories, but there is no exemption for useful articles. I am fine with a community consensus to ignore the criteria on a specific case, but it needs to be a community consensus, not my unilateral decision.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I could care less about WP:DENY. If you would follow through and put this into my sandbox, I will recreate the article under my account name, in a better form. The person you wish to deny credit for the article will not get credit for it, mission accomplished. Carrying further to deny a valid article its place on wikipedia as a vindictive act against this user goes too far. We are about posting valid information here. What we are achieving is posting the information, using some of the legwork that user did and denying them credit for it. Denying me the option to use their legwork is holding back progress and vindictive against me. I have done nothing wrong. Should I choose to create this article from scratch exclusively on my own . . . I probably wouldn't take the initiative to do it. Had I suspected someone like you would be overreaching their administrative duties, I could have made a copy myself. Now its hidden and I can't. I don't want to go to ANI. Please stop the dissertation, add it to my sandbox and walk away from this. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 rebounds for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 rebounds is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 points until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Catherine Burks-Brooks

Hi Sphilbrick. I want to request a copy of the Draft:Catherine Burks-Brooks deleted on 27 February 2016. Upon investigation of subject of article, I believe her article warrants further work and acceptance as an article on Wikipedia. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mitchumch:  Done Hope you will work on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating Draft:Danny Jowenko

I believe this is a important piece of information that links to other information in wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to try and fix the problems in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruipgui (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ruipgui:  Done Please make an edit soon, however small, so that our bot doesn't identify it as an article without edits in the last six months.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

AfCs

Twice today you have deleted AfCs that I am recreating within a minute or two before I have a chance to remove the G13 tag. Are you looking at the log, where there is my reason for recreation? DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer is no - which log do you mean? Can you identify them? I'd like to look. Articles with the G13 tag have a very low Type I error - some of which were my own, when I recreated per request and forgot to remove the tag.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean, for example:Draft:Prof. Rabi Nanda Bhaumik?

If so, that looks like a copyvio of this page.He may well be notable, but it was created by a drive by IP who abandoned it. If someone wants to adopt it, the article may have promise, but if it is abandoned for six months at a time, it should be deleted, until someone who cares enough decides to put in the time to work on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe tomorrow we can discuss this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Picky wording issue

Hi Sphilbrick.

You appear to have advised User_talk:Onel5969 to tag some userspace pages as CSD#A7? Is that right? I think there is a clear consensus that the A criteria apply strictly only to mainspace, evident in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace. Interested in your thoughts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I was literally just formulating a response in my head when I saw your note. My response starts “oops, you’re right A7 is for article space and this is not article space. I narrowly focused on the word “notable”. Let’s rethink this.”--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_56#The_A_criteria_do_not_apply_to_DraftSpace is quite clear. A7 doesn’t apply to Draft space (or user space). I’m fine with that. My concern was motivated by the fact that “non-notable” is a weaker standard than A7, and if anything we want a stronger standard. I realize other words we use but I fixated on “non-notable” because it comes up in admin nominations often. I’m also troubled by using G6. If it was a month old, it would be clearly a user space draft in progress and not eligible for deletion. The page that was deleted was almost 5 years old, and while it seems highly likely it has been abandoned, that’s not the definition of routine housekeeping. Perhaps it could be, but only after discussion not simply because we declare it so. My present thinking that these very old drafts which are more developed than a single sentence or so need to be discussed more fully. I think there’s a recent a and I thread in which some even argued they shouldn’t be deleted at all, so the discussion will be a little more rigorous than simply identifying a length of time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969:@SwisterTwister: I see a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#The_titling_and_deletion_summary_for_CSD.23U5, which is related, but only obliquely addresses stale userspace drafts. I’m mulling over whether to join that discussion or start a new one, but I can’t do either right away. I urge editors working on stale user space drafts to only nominate the most clear-cut examples (a single sentence or less) until this is sorted out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of my userpage

Hello Sphilbrick,

You recently deleted User:Ykraps/JK under criteria G6 . The criteria here [1]. states that userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text can be deleted, “...if the user who created the page has been inactive for at least one year”. A cursory glance at my contributions here [2] would’ve revealed that I am far from inactive. I notice here [3] that the responsibility for doing so doesn’t appear to rest with the reviewing admin, which begs the question, whose responsibility is it? I contested the deletion here [4] but the page was deleted anyway. Might I enquire why? Was my reasoning considered invalid perhaps?

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Introduction_to_criteria states, “There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination”. I would humbly suggest that this means notifying the creator on his talk page and not relying on him having the page on his watchlist. Furthermore, the introduction goes on to say, “Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all prior revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criteria...” which again doesn’t appear to have been done. There appears to be plenty of policy and procedures protecting us from trigger happy deletionists but no-one appears to be following them, which I find rather worrying to say the least.--Ykraps (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps:See post below.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Some diligent editors are working on cleaning up some of the material in draft space and user space. In almost all cases, the removals make sense and are supported by valid CSD criteria. In a few cases, I think the deletions makes sense but are not technically supported by current CSD criteria. I plan to start a discussion to gain community consensus on how we should proceed. That said, the specific user space page of yours (now restored) was blanked, which by common convention is treated as a request for deletion. I’m surprised it wasn’t deleted back in 2013 when it was blanked. As it is currently blank it is possible some other editor will run across it and proposal for deletion. I urge you to rethink the decision to keep a blank page; I won’t be surprised if this happens again no matter what decision is reached on deletion criteria.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)According to WP:G7 blanking in userspace should not be considered a deletion request. The sentence about blanking reads, " If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." So we shouldn't be deleting blanked userspace pages as editor requests. -- GB fan 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thanks for the clarification. I would still consider it a better practice to leave something on the page, even a simple notice- This page being retained for history purposes - rather than leaving it blank, to help avoid inadvertent deletion. Is there ever a valid reason for a truly blank page (with the possible exception of an example in WP space to illustrate what a blank page looks like?)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the page but my concerns still stand. Nobody checked to see whether I was active or not and when I contested the deletion as per the instructions, my protests were ignored without explanation. I am less concerned for myself, who understands that an admin can restore the page, than I am for newbies who find this sort of thing immensely frustrating. I remember how supportive you were when I first started here so when you come to rewrite the guidelines, I urge you to ensure you include enough safeguards to protect against "diligent editing". Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I am in discussion with some of the involved editors, and will work on formulating some better guidelines.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

re How good is your memory

The subject of an article:: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Pachelli is requesting a restoration of the article.

I see that there was a version in 2007 which was deleted as a G 12. I have no problem explaining why that one cannot be restored. However, it appears you deleted this article in 2010, and the AFD page is rather short on details. I fully realize how long ago this was but is there any chance you could tell me something more so I can explain to the subjecty it cannot be restored?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No idea, sorry, I'll just respectfully defer to community consensus and standard processes here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

for all the deletions. I was at a loss as to what to do with them until someone suggest the DELETE ME tag, which worked very, very fast. Life is good, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much. I condensed things to go by year rather than by month. For example, see here. Previously, that (and the other year pages) just contained a table with links to each month—that had discussions—page, the ones that I requested deletion on. Amaury (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 03:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reference

No, I hadn't heard. I'll follow up. Best, Beebuk 23:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Good, glad to see that you got my note.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Help with a Disruptive Editor

Hi Sphilbrick!

I am having an issue with User:Lewisthejayhawk over some minor disruptive edits. On the standings templates for collegiate basketball conferences, instead of setting it as the date that the most recent game was played (and the standings changed) he/she instead sets it to the date of the next game to be played. Aside from being incorrect, it also makes it difficult for me (and other editors and readers) to tell when the standings actually were last updated. After many comments where I fixed or reverted their edits, and through multiple messages on their talk page, the user is still making these incorrect edits, while failing to acknowledge my outreach to them. I saw on Lewisthejayhawk's talk page that you recently had a very similar situation with the same user. Would you be able to help me sort this issue out, or point me in the right direction so it can be properly handled? Thank you! --Zach Pepsin (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please be aware that we have far too few editors helping with wbb articles, and Lewis is doing a tremendous amount of work, so I want to make sure Lewis continues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:I absolutely understand and agree 100%, there is plenty of work to be done as far as wbb articles are concerned, and I am grateful that Lewisthejayhawk is contributing so much. However I don't think that would constitute for continuing to make the incorrect edits, even after I reached out. I want to make sure I'm doing my part too in seeing that the articles are edited correctly.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I posted a comment, let's see how it plays out.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no. I'm doing the right thing. So, no worries

Draft:New York Red Riders (American Basketball Association)

I was wondering if you could evaluate this and see if it's notable. Considering it's part of the American Basketball Association, it may be notable but I also mentioned to the user to add further available sources for solidity. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Thanks for thinking of me. I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Semi-pro_team--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:  The comment they left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2002 McDonald's All-American Boys Game and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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! LaMona (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User Lewisthejayhawk again

He is still creating articles with links to categories that don't exist. Here[5] and here[6] are just two examples. The first of which was done after I wrote his talk page and got this reply[7] Maybe you can have a word with him again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: To add to this, Lewisthejayhawk has continued to incorrectly editing the dates in cbb standings templates, even after me and Sphilbrick notified him multiple times to stop doing this. Ex: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

On another note, I have seen similar edits from 206.188.36.202 and 71.217.119.25 recently, but not since I left a message on their talk pages. Not sure if it is related to Lewisthejayhawk, but wanted to publicly note it.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit: In addition, I will hold off on correcting the edits I listed as examples, per Sphilbrick's prior request.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

SP, I mentioned you in this ANI thread[8] started by Zachlp....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been away all day (enjoying the extraordinary weather) and just now home. I responded at the ANI page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is one that I don't understand: I keep putting the seeds of teams in conference tournaments into the schedules for teams, and Lewisthejayhawk promptly keeps removing them. That's not even a matter of doing his own convention/style, it's removing information for no reason at all.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I saw you mention an OTRS ticket elsewhere without linking to it. I am not sure if you are aware, but you can write [[:ticket:12345]] to make a link to any ticket. Only people with access can read, but still, the link makes people more likely to read. I still want to meet you with you sometime and hear your talk on checking OTRS permissions requests. I handle lots of tickets but not permissions checks. Hope you are well. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC) My answer is both simple and complicated (and boring but you opened this up :) the simple answer is that I haven’t memorized the code for doing the link and I usually don’t need to know the code, because I often edit with an editor in which I have embedded a number of useful shortcuts including the OTRS ticket link, but I recently made reference to an OTRS number while not having that tool open so I just copied the number. The complicated answer is that it might be seen as rude to provide a link in a post that cannot be read by the reader. Thus, I do use the link if I know I am talking to an OTRS agent or posting at an OTRS noticeboard, but I might not if I don’t think the person I’m talking to is an agent. It occurs to me, partly as a result of your observation, that I should recognize that the audience is broader than just the person I’m writing to. Thus, it could be argued that it would be helpful to include the link even if I think the person I’m directly talking to is not an agent. In fact, I included the number namely is a note to myself. I think the search function in OTRS is woeful, and on a couple occasions recently I posted something to someone in Wikipedia. When they followed up with a question I had to track down the ticket and it was harder than it should have been. By copying the ticket number in the post I knew that I would be able to find it. Of course, if I use the link I could find it even faster, which brings me back to my simple answer that I just had memorized the code and didn’t have my shortcut handy. On a more general note I am not handling permissions requests currently. I am active at info–en and see that you are as well. However, I feel like I’m drinking from a firehose and would love to have a chat with you sometime to see if we can brainstorm solutions. While I am not currently doing permissions, the message of my talk applies equally to info–en. Lots of agents doing nothing an exceedingly small number of agents doing most of the work. Not sustainable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

RAN

I moved his draft article to mainspace and the redirect is now of no use. Besides that, it is under my name.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Traditionalist: Sorry, I missed that it was created by you. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

unknown subject

Dear Mr: Admin user,

Peoples has bored through the kaptan kılbıyık. Let it delete !

Best regard,

--85.102.119.171 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is available in wikia of the kaptan kılbıyık.Look at this ! you take care ! All you delete ! İs All right !--85.102.119.171 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in Wikia.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)