User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 45

Removing references from articles

Some minor progress made, not it is enough to justify the time spent.

I see this as simple vandalism [1]. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) One would have hoped that an editor with almost 80K edits would understand how BRD works, and have a clue about what constitutes vandalism. Sadly, that is not the case. You proposed a reference on the talk page Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Potential_refs_for_some_of_the_Project_Steve_concerns which garnered negative reactions and not a single voice of support, much less a consensus for inclusion. While you are to be commended for starting the process at the talk page, when you saw zero support, your next action should not have been to add it anyway. The best one can say is that you managed not to understand how Wikipedia works in all your edits, and your addition was a Bold addition. However, when it was Reverted, your next action should be Discussing why it belongs, and gain a consensus, not begin an edit war. To then go on and call the reversion an act of "vandalism" staggers the imagination. I might expect a newbie without experience to make such an error, but how can someone with your experience be ignorant of BRD and vandalism concepts? Are you trying to get blocked? --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Have you ever read WP:DTTR? Your canned template is as insulting as it is inaccurate. Did you miss the edit summary, which I will repeat here on the possibility you missed it: Please read BRD. You made a change, even though it was being discussed and not supported. Bad form. Following a revert, please go to talk --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you for responding. Sorry that my second attempt to get you to respond upset you so. I'm waiting to see if anyone has any response to the specific reference besides your edit summary: "The ref is mainly about other things. Mentions oregon lis en passant, but adds nothing of value. This is what talk is for" I'm unaware of any policies/guidelines/etc to support "The ref is mainly about other things" as rationale for removing a reference. Maybe you want to make a policy-backed case for it's removal? I already have for it's inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC) For someone who likes to use WP:FOC so much, it is interesting to see how often you focus on other things. Don't get me wrong, I think there are times it is valuable to inquire into the motivations of others, but there's a difference between inquiring and falsely assuming, as you are wont to do. As for my reason for removing the reference, some things are such basic common sense that they don't need to be codified in policy. Check out: this deletion discussion All of the sources I looked at contained a passing mention, and nothing else. another deletion discussion Despite having nine footnotes at the bottom of the article, a cursory check of them reveals that only the banning-related sources actually focuses on the subject; the rest are passing mentions. yet another deletion discussion The first link you gave is a passing ref, and wouldn't establish notability of any kind; However, if you would like a more formal statement, check out Wikipedia:Notability Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (emphasis added)--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I'm trying to find policy-based rationale. That most certainly is FOC. "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) You missed the point. I never suggested that nothing you do is about content. Only that it is humorous to see so much non content nonsense from someone who preaches FOC so often.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry you feel that way. I expect in a discussion about the removal of a reference that there is some policy-based reasons for doing so. Looks like there were no such reasons. Any forthcoming? --Ronz (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I explained why I removed it. I gave examples of similar situations where such a reference was rejected. I provided a link to a guideline which supports the removal. I think I've gone an extra mile to explain why removing a passing reference to subject X in an article about subject Y is not warranted. I get that you haven't been persuaded. Have you noticed that not a single other editor has yet to agree with you? This is astounding in itself. Usually, in an article about climate issues you can find lots on both sides of an issue, and it takes careful reason of consensus to determine what should be done. This is transmogrifying from fascinating to tedious. Time for you to find some DR venue, to see if you can convince someone else that parodies about creationism belong in an article about climate scientists.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Again, you are trying to apply WP:N to article content. It simply doesn't apply. "see if you can convince someone else that parodies about creationism belong in an article about climate scientists." Interesting misrepresentation on multiple counts, but it seems to be the heart of it. It will be interesting to see how we can actually get away from these repeated misrepresentations. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC) It will be interesting to see how you support the claim there are misrepresentations. The phrase in question, with numbers added see if you can convince someone else that 1. parodies about 2. creationism belong in an 3. article about 4. climate scientists. Do you think that: Parody—Project Steve, described in the lead as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" is actually not a parody? It is many things. It being a parody is irrelevant, though the use of parody is often an effective means of communication. It is a response to the lists and petitions of scientists used in evolution denialism. It is also only tangentially related to the reference being included in the article. What has Project Steve to do with the removal of the reference? --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) creationism—The link I removed, with the title "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change" is unrelated to creationism? It's definitely related to creationism, as it is to climate change. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) article—I hope we do not have to debate whether the article is really an article. Climate scientists—List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is about climate scientists. I hope we do not have to debate whether scientists are scientists. Do you disagree that global warming issues are studies by climate scientists? No, they are not "climate scientists". --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Did I miss something? Perhaps the multiple misrepresentations are not in plain view but hidden in the penumbras and emanations of my simple statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Fair enough, I'll accept your point that not every single scientist in the article might properly be labeled a climate scientists and amend the question to: see if you can convince someone else that parodies about creationism belong in an article about climate scientists [Oops, I see I failed to remove the word climate. As should be obvious I meant see if you can convince someone else that parodies about creationism belong in an article about scientists] As for your response to "parody" saying that something is many things is not a rebuttal to the assertion that it is one of them. Stating that a cat is a house pet is not a rebuttal to the assertion that it is a four legged animal. You might have noted that the article about Project Steve describes it as a parody, and goes on to note that it "pokes fun at such endeavors". In the next paragraph is mentions that it is also something else, but the decision to mention parody first surely indicates that it was not an aside. In any event, you didn't disagree that it was a parody, you didn't challenge that the article was an article and you agreed that the link about creationism is about creationism. Other than the conceded point that the list of scientists is not purely a list of scientists, where are the "multiple misrepresentations". Is that all there is? One minor point? If so, this is good. We are now in agreement. You asked What has Project Steve to do with the removal of the reference? Let me turn that back on you. Perhaps you recall that you added the reference to the talk page section Potential refs for some of the Project Steve concerns Presumably you were trying to support your attempted inclusion of the see also to Project Steve. Do you remember that? Are you now claiming that this ref has nothing to do with Project Steve? Good news, I agree with you. Progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I wrote quite a bit after "It is many things." It seems a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise, let along make conclusions from it. It is more about climate change than creationism. Again, seems inappropriate... At least we agree that it is not a list of climate scientists. I think it safe to say that these misrepresentations are indeed at the heart of the lack of progress in all these discussions. "Presumably you were trying to support your attempted inclusion of the see also to Project Steve...Good news, I agree with you." So it has nothing to do with Project Steve, yet you bring it up as rationale for its removal? --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC) You said: So it has nothing to do with Project Steve, yet you bring it up as rationale for its removal? You are mistaken. here is my edit summary: The ref is mainly about other things. Mentions oregon lis en passant, but adds nothing of value. This is what talk is for Remember, you are the one who first included in a list " Potential refs for some of the Project Steve concerns". I'm happy to see you no longer think it is related to Project Steve, but you are the one who included with the explanation "Here are a few potential refs for some of the Project Steve concerns". My removal edit summary mentions the Oregon Petition, not Project Steve. So you just thought it best to bring up Project Steve in your comments here about the removal for the source, even though it's not related? --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) ?? How many times do I have to explain before it sinks in? YOU listed the reference in a section about Project Steve. It is incumbent on YOU to explain the linkage. You now concede it is not linked. YOU are the one who added to the article, despite not getting a single editor to agree with you that it was relevant. I removed it, with an explanation that did not mention Project Steve. My reference to parodies is about Project Steve, because you have been trying to add it. Have you changed your opinion about that? I hope so, but I haven't seen you say that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC) I think it best if we take some time off from this. Have a nice day! --Ronz (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that you'd want to continue the discussion, but it's your choice. (Feel free to move this under the collapse if you like.)

I started this discussion to learn why the reference was removed. From the discussions to date, there don't appear to be any policy-related reasons. It appears that because the reference was originally identified in a discussion about Project Steve, the reference was removed.--Ronz (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You are conflating two things incorrectly. While discussing the removal, I made the comment, now modified,

see if you can convince someone else that parodies about creationism belong in an article about scientists

That was motivated by the fact that you had included a link to Project Steve, and followed that with a Section about Project Steve. As a reminder:

• This is the edit to the article when you added a link to Project Steve
• This is the edit, added by you, with the title "Potential refs for some of the Project Steve concerns"

I have asked before and will ask again:

"Have you abandoned your desire to add a link to Project Steve in the list article?"

However, when you added the reference from that discussion to the article, and I removed it. I made no mention of Project Steve in my removal.

As I said in my edit summary, and have reminded you before, I said:

The ref is mainly about other things. Mentions oregon lis en passant, but adds nothing of value. This is what talk is for

Absolutely no mention of Project Steve.

Irrespective of the answer to that question, I believe you are still unconvinced that the removal of the Earthmagazine.org is warranted. More than one editor has suggested a more appropriate article. You even agreed, but it appears you have not given up the desire to add it to an article where it is less appropriate.

You've taken the right first steps by discussing it with me. I remain unconvinced that the addition to the list article would make a better encyclopedia. If you do not agree, I urge you to try other DR steps. Maybe Wikipedia:Third opinion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Because of your persistence, I've looked a little closer at it. Have you? It is astounding how bad it is. I had never heard of Steven Newton or the NCSE before, but if Newton is a spokesperson for the organization, it is in sad shape.

His thesis is that there is a linkage between the climate change deniers and creationism.

Did you see where he cites Plimer, presumably a denier, and points out he is decidedly not a creationist? Then follows it up with Robertson, a creationist, who is not a denier?

Suppose I were trying to argue that a plane is like a fish, and I gave you an example of a plane that is not a fish, and an example of a fish that is not a plane. Then followed that with "What it boils down to is that planes and fish both need oxygen." Wouldn't the argument be absurd?

The article mentions the Oregon Petition, about the only (tenuous) linkage between the reference topic and the list article. But the Oregon Petition is not about denial. Have you read it? Maybe Steven Newton doesn't have a clue, but that doesn't mean we ought to cite his poor excuse for an article.

I no longer think it belongs in the denial article. I had given the author the benefit of the doubt, that he was talking about climate denial. It is hard to say what he is talking about; it is a mishmash of nonsense and incompetence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"It appears that because the reference was originally identified in a discussion about Project Steve, the reference was removed."

I'm trying summarize what I'm seeing in this discussion. Your repeated need to change the subject to Project Steve says to me that the discussion on why you removed the reference is over.

I'm glad you're looking at the content.

I think this transitions us to the article talk page nicely.

Thank you for your patience in all this. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You said:

Your repeated need to change the subject to Project Steve says to me that the discussion on why you removed the reference is over.

When I work with people on interpersonal skills, one of my favorite techniques is asking person A to explain to person B what A think person B is saying. This is often insightful, not because Person A is correct (they usually aren't ) but because it reveals to person B how their remarks are being interpreted. I'm fascinated that you think I am repeatedly changing the subject to Project Steve. I have absolutely no interest in the Project, except to make sure it is not incorrectly inserted into an article where it does not belong. I have asked multiple times if you've given up that quest, not because I want to discuss it, but because I want to drop it.

On a more positive note, I agree that the discussion of why the earthmagazine.org op/ed doesn't belong in the List article is a content question, and belongs on the article talk page --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Um...

In your message here you seem to have linked to this in error. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

Sorry, User:Rich Farmbrough but I am not seeing the problem. I am a new clerk for the committee and that was one of my first clerk actions, but I'm looking and not seeing the problem. Your first link is to the message to a contributor to the Argentine History amendment request. In that message I provided a link to the section of the Amendment discussion in which the Arbitrator views and discussion appeared. Can you tell me what you think is in error?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

When I click on that link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=604200125#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_3

- even in your comment above, I get the diff showing the addition of "=== Statement by uninvolved duckduckstop ===" - the "&diff=prev&oldid=604200125" ensures that it is a diff. The link you want is, maybe this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=604200125#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_3

It's the same "oldid" (the one before you archived) but it's to the page at the time, not to the diff that created it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC).

OK, I see the difference (so to speak)

I edited the post to MarshalN20, but the other two have already archived the posts, so I prefer not to make the change, given the request not to edit the page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link, but there was no need for concern. I have already seen that message a pair of weeks ago, and I'm aware of that outcome. Have in mind that talk pages are not articles, and each time that you edit the talk page of another user you trigger the "you have new mesages" orange notification. In most cases, unless there's something really important to fix (such as a non-free image being displayed in a talk page) if an older message that can be reasonably understood to have been already seen by the user contains minor mistakes (which do not detract from the main idea that was intended to be said), it may be a better idea to leave it that way. For instance, checking my contributions after the date of the message you may see that I had been active most days after it; so it's likely that I saw that message at some point. I'm saying this because I understand what was going on, but a new user who is not familiar with the technical works of wikipedia may get confused if he gets a notification of new messages but does not find any actual new message at his talk page. Cambalachero (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Al-Sharif Mahamud.jpg

Is there any problem with this image according to this ticket? Ankry (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking now to refresh my recollection of the history.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

A person purporting to be a relative of the subject of a photo provided a permission statement.

I am not comfortable with the permission and unsure how to proceed.

I do not see an article about the subject, so I do not know who is portrayed in the image, or what time frame he was alive, which might help. Do you know?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now sent an email to some other agents, to get some advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Tony Penikett

I've added quite a bit of sourcing to the article per your request. I did indeed catch some inaccuracies in the process, although they were generally on the level of stuff that was true but had been incorrectly assigned to the wrong time in his career. There are a few details (mostly his later career stuff) that I'm still having some trouble with, and if you do get any feedback about continued inaccuracies I'd welcome hearing about it so that we can resolve any further concerns. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Liberty GB

I want to create a page on Liberty GB or Liberty Great Britain. However, I note form the page creation details that you have previously deleted such a page ("13:32, 6 February 2014 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Liberty GB (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block)") and that "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator." Obvious at it may seem, I have absolutely no way of knowing if what I want to do is similar or not since it has been deleted. I would guess that it is, though, the same subject. I have no idea who the previous creator was and, naturally, therefore have no connections with them. A draft of what I am proposing is on my own page - User:Emeraude/temp - perhaps you'd take a look and give an opinion . Thanks.Emeraude (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Emeraude - Thanks for contacting me, and sorry for the delay, I have been out of town for two days and just returned. I only glanced at the draft, I was more interested in looking at who was creating it. The concern is to make sure that some sockpuppet isn't trying to force some material by creating a new account and starting it over again. While I'm not aware that we have crossed ppaths before, it is abundantly obvious you are not a sockpuppet, so I'm fine with the draft page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Emeraude (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

CCI update

MER-C 11:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

that was blatant vandalism

he supposed to get a level 2 or level 3 warning (a real warning and not just some note) people get blocked for less Egyptian445 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't dispute that some editors do get blocked for less, but not by me. Many people don't really believe that Wikipedia will let them edit, and want to find out. They did. If they learn from the lesson, they may become a productive editor. If not, they will get blocked. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

if you dont dispute then he supposed to get a minimum of a level 3 warning (a real warning and not just some note) Egyptian445 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm on top of it. I think the warning I provided is fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FW Logo - Colour - Gradient (CMYK) low res.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FW Logo - Colour - Gradient (CMYK) low res.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. TLSuda (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably lost in the process

You archived a discussion that I'd just posted a couple of questions in. I hadn't noticed that a few hours before Newyorkbrad said the discussion could be closed and archived, but maybe you or NYB can answer my questions?

I asked Scalhotrod if he would redact his accusations about me, and his answer [2] makes me wonder 1. Is it poor form to make such a request? and 2. Is it OK to redact something one says in an ArbCom discussion?

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a process, will finish, alert NYB, and check into other question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yellow pigs and 17

I was first introduced to Yellow Pigs by a friend/mentor George Glauberman. He commented to me at the time he would never forget the number of my doorbell number because it was 17, and he said "A prominent probabilist once told me 17 is the only truly random number." Of course George has a very dry sense of humour and (I think) he loves the fact that the only truly random number is unique. Well life conspired to move within the same apartment complex several times, and on the few occasions he visited me, I had a different doorbell number each time. Perhaps 17 is the only truly random number...

Anyways, I am sharing this story with you because I really like your userbox. Thenub314 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How extremely coincidental,Thenub314. A few minutes ago, I decided to contribute to another Wiki, and need to create a user name. I thought a bit and chose Yellow Pig. I've been editing as Yellow Pig even while you were writing this. My street address is 17. I also had a conversation with someone this morning in which I analogized the argument to a proof I once developed to prove that 17 is the only random number. The proof is lame and not worth the retelling, but only mentioned because both Yellow Pig and 17 have been on my mind this morning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ohh... playing the field on WP! I warn you she is a cruel mistress. That is pretty funny. I guess random events to tend to cluster. Anyways, have fun. Thenub314 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Will you be at YP Day this summer? (HCSSiM '78 and '79). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

July 17? I did not plan to, but maybe I should look into it. I met Kelly and Spivak in 1968, I believe, in Durham (UNH) rather than Amherst.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Groupiful

I am requesting that you reconsider the deletion of the Groupiful page. The website is notable as it was the subject of three referenced articles by independent online publications (Lifehacker, Hongkiat.com, etc.). In addition, the article was written from a neutral perspective. The level of detail regarding the features was described by the independent sources and is not unlike a number of other Wiki articles. Finally, in accordance with Speedy Deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), as the subject is notable, any non-neutral language should have been replaced by neutral language and not deleted. Thanks! Jonstrykes (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked for reconsideration and for it to be userfied. Those are different things. I userfied.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it. I've rewritten and submitted for review. Thanks for your help. Jonstrykes (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to review the revised article? User:Jonstrykes/Groupiful Jonstrykes (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, too much on my plate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

I'm happy to see you haven't given up on the Request Edit queue. If you're interested, I'm also working on the main McKinsey & Company article here. The page started out as a borderline attack piece with some promotion sprinkled in, but it's starting to look like an encyclopedic article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM I haven't already I confess it is still a bit daunting. I would like you to take a look at Talk:Gumstix#requestedit. I'm trying something potentially interesting. It started off well, has stalled, but I sill have hope. One could characterize it as a manual version of pending changes. Rather than try to figure out what they wanted, or push them to make an exact copy of the edit, I asked them to make an edit, which I would then review.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A few comments I am going to write below as I come up with them

• One of the things I would like to see in a Request Edit wizard is to advise the submitter AGAINST adding disclosures to their request. Long-winded disclosures tend to add a lot of extra text to read, distracts from focusing on the content and gives the submitter the impression that it was because of the personal information they disclosed that their edits were rejected. This is counter to our core principles and the template itself is enough of a disclosure.
• The excessive use of primary sources from the company website (all three of his sources were from the company website) is a clear sign that the editor is not going to manage their COI well. Citing the company website is an easy way to get Wikipedia to repeat company messaging, etc. That doesn't mean we should ABF, but that COI is discouraged for this reason. They will be frustrated by the outcome of their collaboration here.
• Like with AfC, most Request Edits will need to be rejected and the submitter will be disappointed by this. Preventing the edits is as important of a role for Request Edits as allowing good ones.
• It is very hard for one editor to explain an edit to another. A wizard can also help with this be creating a form where reviewers would get familiar with the format, though there may be a couple different formats for re-writes, versus corrections, etc.
• I prefer to use Request Edit | G in a lot of cases, to "approve" the edit, except in controversial or sensitive areas.

CorporateM (Talk) 23:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick. Here is an example of how I use Request Edit | G to suggest a COI editor go ahead and make the non-controversial edits they have proposed, which are a clear and obvious improvement. I have not vetted each citation thoroughly, but I presume any mistakes they make are similar to the mistakes any editor makes and ultimately in-consequential. All I checked it for was censorship, advertising, copyright, primary sources, etc. like we would at AfC. Took less than 30 seconds, while making each edit myself would take several minutes. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the G option. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Green iguana

Hi, thanks for facilitating this page move from Green Iguana at 19:07, 20 May 2014. So far as I can tell though the article has now disappeared, and all we have is a circular redirect at Green iguana. Cheers! Spicemix (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Spicemix, I think I fixed it, please check.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Present and correct. Thanks! Spicemix (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)