Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Russian Beatles scam at ANI

I've mentioned you at ANI [1] in connection with the continuing plague of Russian Beatles nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Yeah, it was a musing for a while, now getting tedious. Oddly, happens a lot when I am out of town, so a big thank-you to the tps who often clean it up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Pir-Shabda-Khan-facial-picture.jpg

You changed a lot of stuff and added {{PermissionOTRS}}, but there is currently no licence there. Can you fix that? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you are on top of things. The license was specified in the email, but I got interrupted, and skipped the step where I confirm that the license on the image matches the email. It now is.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI push

Hey. I'm sending you this since you helped out during the initial rush at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ktr101. It's now down to the final 200 articles, less then that technically, and if we were to all do a few a day we could probably wrap this one up in a week. Hopefully you'll be able to help out again. Wizardman 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Runway Theatre Company

Not sure I understand the addition you just made to the talk page, just so you are aware I have changed a lot of the article and added one or two refs since the deletion discussion started. ---- nonsense ferret 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There is some text which was copied or paraphrased from http://www.runwaytheatre.co.uk/about/ (or alleged to). The owners of that site were attempting to provide permission to use the words, to avoid the possibility of a copyvio. Their permissions statement wasn't correctly formed, although their intent was fairly clear. I rewrote the permission statement for them.
You may have already rewritten the material to avoid any copyvio problems, in which case getting the permission is moot, but it can't hurt.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Understood, many thanks for the quick clarification ---- nonsense ferret 19:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Brother Studios.jpg

You added {{PermissionOTRS}} here. Did you notice that there are two very different photos in the history? Does the permission apply to both photos or just to one of them? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I received an improperly formatted permission statement a day or two ago, and I rewrite ti for them. When I saw the new one, I added the permission. I now see there was an earlier version, very different. The uploader notes they mistakenly uploaded the wrong file. I'll confirm with the uploader, then I guess we should delete first try?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The first revision of the file information page clearly tells that the image shows "The front façade of Brother Studios." The first file obviously shows something else, so I don't think that we can trust the source or licensing information for that file. The text on the file information page obviously refers to the second version. Thus, I'd say that we have to delete that revision. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I had posed a question here, but I'm sure you are right. I went ahead and deleted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Brian Keenan - Singer Songwriter - Brooklyn NY.jpeg

You added {{PermissionOTRS}} here. Note that the file also is on Commons at Commons:File:Brian Keenan, Singer Songwriter, Brooklyn NY.jpeg. Could you add the permission tag there too? I don't think that it would be a good idea for me to copy over the tag myself as I'm not an OTRS member. I think that it would trigger some edit filter on Commons, and it could maybe look strange if someone looks at the history of the file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Bbb23's talk page.
Message added 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quotes in footnotes

Hey. Do you know if this has been resolved policy-wise as to whether this is a copyright issue? I know you've been working on RAN's case so you probably know better than I. If you know about as much as I do then I'm tempted to just get an RFC going either deprecating the practice or at least limiting it. Whether or not this is allowed should make tackling at least that particular CCI a lot easier. Wizardman 00:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: not resolved. But I'm in favor of allowing it within some limitations. Will try to respond in more depth tomorrow.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks (I have a convo going on MRG's page about this, so feel free to chime in there). Wizardman 20:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend

Not sure if you've been following the latest chapter in the Richard A. Norton saga, but I've got a proposed remedy up at his talk page — User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_). Since you've been so closely involved in the work on his CCI case, I was hoping you'd chime in as to whether it satisfies your concerns moving forward. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've been away from it for a bit, but I'll go look.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Scott Holland Memorial Lectures

Thanks for the feedback. I have learnt something new - didn't realise non-creative lists are not subject to copyright. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail awaits you.

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, I will give your search idea a try.--ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't work, please ask me, I'd love to help. (I sent a follow up suggestion, which has helped me a lot)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw them thanks. Still finding my way around, but will be back for more help for sure.--ukexpat (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Cheaper the Better Logo.jpeg

You uploaded a different image here, citing an OTRS ticket. However, the file still has {{OTRS pending}}. Should it have {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{OTRS received}} instead? Also, if there is a permission, does it apply to both images or just to the second one? This could possibly be {{PD-textlogo}} (although this casts some doubt), but a free licence may be needed if you wish to use the logo outside the United States, so that would still be useful to have. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Uggh, it is more complicated.
It isn't free, I intended to fill out a non-free rationale (but read on). It was sent to me via OTRS, because they were unhappy the old logo was showing up in a Google search. The article about the company seems to be gone, but the old logo is still there. I thought that uploading the new logo over the old logo would help with the Google search issue, although of course, that is officially not our problem.
I can take off the OTRS pending, however the OTRS received means we are expecting more information, and we are not. Ah, wait, I just realized something. I was getting ready to upload it, and was going to fill out the non-free rationale, but then I realized I could just upload a new version. However, that means it doesn't have the non-free rationale. The problem is, a non-free rationale is supposed to have exactly one article name (I think, can it have none?), and this has none. Hmm, any thoughts?
Technically, the "permission" applies to neither, because it isn't permission, they supplied a logo for fair use (although they wouldn't put it that way, they thought they were providing an updated logo for the article about their company, until I pointed out that it was gone). Whomever uploaded it the first time used a pd license. That the owner's call, but I would advise it.
I added the OTRS ticket number, because this is explained in the email traffic, so if someone was wondering what was going on, they could check, but obviously, that only works for agents. They might be willing to provide a free license, but I wasn't planning on pushing for that.
I'm not sure what to do next, any ideas?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If the logo is unfree and unused, then it violates WP:NFCC#7. In that case, it should be tagged as {{subst:orfud}} and be deleted after a week.
If the logo is free (it might pass {{PD-textlogo}} although I'm uncertain), then it doesn't need to be in use. However, since there doesn't seem to be any article about the company, I'm not convinced that the image is useful for Wikipedia. If an image is thought to be useless, it is typically nominated for deletion at WP:FFD.
In either case, I would guess that the outcome would be that the logo is deleted, so WP:FFD might be the solution. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. They were concerned that the old logo was showing up in a Google search. If there is no logo, it will either not show up, or, if cached, the most recent one will show up, which is now the right one, so they should be happy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoo-hoo!!!! --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Creativity Machine Generated Face from 1997.png

Any update on the ORTS status of this image ? LightGreenApple talk to me 01:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked to ensure that noting had been sent in. It has not. I sent a follow-up note indicating that the image may be deleted if proper permission is not sent in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks LightGreenApple talk to me 02:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RAN case at ArbCom

Hi again. A brief heads-up that I've dropped your name in my evidence article in the Richard Arthur Norton case at ArbCom. While this document is not yet final, I expect it will remain. LINK. Thank you for your work on the case. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


Dominic Angerame

Hi Sphilbrick, I hope I'm following protocol here... I'd like to ask about this action: 19 October 2012 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Dominic Angerame (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) Dominic is an experimental filmmaker of some reknown, and he was also the director of Canyon Cinema for decades. He is upset that his page was deleted, and he is not technically sophisticated enough to go through channels here to find out why. I have not seen his page for many years and do not know the nature of the alleged copyright infringement, but wonder what can be done to restore his page. Thanks very much for any information.

EricTheise (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

First one bit of protocol. New messages go at the bottom. No big deal, but I don't normally look to the top for new messages, I look to the bottom.

As for the deletion, there are a couple related issues.

I'm sorry to hear he is upset, but the actions we took are for his protection. We have people copying other people's material every day, and we attempt to remove it quickly whenever found.

Many people are surprised when we delete something for copyright reasons when the material copied from was authored by the same person. However, we do not do identity checks when someone creates a user name, so there is no way within Wikipedia itself to determine a match between a copyright holder and an editor. This situation does, arise, and we do have a process. See: Donating copyrighted materials for more details.

We take copyright issues very seriously. Deletion of material because it appears to be a copyright violation, and subsequent restoration after receiving proper permission is a very common event, and no big deal.

However many people are unaware that they should not be editing articles about themselves.

See WP:COI, and especially, Autobiography.

Because articles about individuals should be written by others, when that article inlcudes material written by the individual, the presumption is that it is a copyright problem. If the owner of the material copied is willing to license it, we can arrange for that, but we err on the side of caution. We do allow seven days before removal, but if no one steps up to explain why it should be allowed, it is deleted. The material clearly closely followed material at this site.

I added an explanation to the talk page, which is not currently available, so I will reproduce it here:

Copyright issue review

It is a copy-paste with only light copy-editing. I don't see anything worth salvaging, except possibly the list of films, and it make no sense to preserve that, if nothing else remain. Given the additional complication of the private letter, which would require careful revdel at best, and the need to revdel just about every prior version, I think it is best to remove it, and let someone start from scratch.

By "worth salvaging" I wasn't making an editorial comment about content, I was referring to the fact that factual lists are often not subject to copyright, so one could argue that the list could remain is the other material were removed.

If someone wants to start a new article about Dominic Angerame, they are welcome to do so, as long it is someone without a conflict of interest. If there is a desire to use information form a source subject to copyright, the link aboove can be used to arrange for permission.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Sphilbrick, thanks for the quick response and clear explanation of the circumstances. I thought I had seen Dominic's page in the past, but if the content was as you say, then I am thinking of a different resource. You were right to take it down, both for copyright and quality issues. Cheers.

EricTheise (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Sphilbrick, Thanks for pointing this out to me. I was totally unaware of the problem. I think I'll try to officially change my user name (the awkward "Early morning person") to EMP, but in the meantime will take your wise suggestion to include a link to my user page in my corresp to other eds. Great point and much appreciated. EMP (talk 22:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I have nothing against using "Early morning person" as a user name, and I expect some will shorten it to EMP in talk discussions, but I'm just pointing out that the association won't be obvious to a new editor, or someone outside Wikipedia.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Frank Cannella Photo Feb2013.JPG

The image has licences which require attributing the author, but no author is listed, so this doesn't look correct to me. It might be possible to use the attribution requirement to request non-attribution, but that is probably uncommon. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The uploader neglected to add the information template. I added it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The Invisible Barnstar The Working Man's Barnstar The Guidance Barnstar
The Multiple Barnstar
For your tireless work as a volunteer responder, helping frustrated people of all kinds with their Wikipedia-related problems, always maintaining a cheerful demeanor with them, notwithstanding the extreme frustration at times. Moreover, for always working to enhance the volunteer response and responders. You are truly a credit to the project, thank you! -- Avi (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow, thank-you, very much. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, long overdue. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

re: protocol

The second question is simple enough; personally I just revdel when it's a significant amount of text, a least a paragraph's worth if recent, more so if further back. A couple sentences that far back wouldn't be worth it. As for whether to rewrite or not, it depends how much is copyrighted. If it's mostly close paraphrasing that's only a part of the article, rewriting's easy enough. If it's 3k worth of prose out of 4k in the article that almost verbatim, or even if it is very close, then just blanking would be best; if people don't want stuff deleted then they shouldn't have violated copyright, so removing with a notice is fine for the more severe ones. Wizardman 17:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, the first part matches how I was planning to handle it.
Yeah, I agree if removing the copyvio effectively eviscerates the article, might as well nuke it. In this case it removed part of the history, so it should be included, but I'll let established editors of the article handle it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Joseph S. Pulver, Sr.jpg

You added permission but no licence. Can you check, please? Also, many licences require attribution, but there's currently no attribution. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Same issue with File:Mike eZine.jpg, by the way. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Both from the same source, Both fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there is still no one who is attributed for making the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Neither had the information template when created. I added one, and added information as I could from the email from the copyright holder, and wrote to each, asking them to correct or supplement missing information.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

West Indies

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ShepTalk 01:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Vela Molecular Ridge images

Hi Sphilbrick, I'm the editor interested in porting those images from the it.wp over at the en.wp as I stated at the help desk report. Should I open a ticket at the OTRS noticeboard you point me to or should I first wait to see what you can come up with? Regards and thanks for the help! Gaba p (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I urge you to post to the noticeboard. I did post a question to the OTRS mailing list, but I haven't yet heard a response, and I'd like to have it formally noted. I will try to look into it myself later, but I have some time constraints at the moment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks a lot for your help. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

reviewing eyes
Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who reads this looked at one more article it could be over today. - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 33rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. I miss the photographer, again, and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. I was thinking of him recently. I saw a video clip that sounded like it could be him. I can't view video clips at my office, so I may have the wrong one, but I think it is the one at this link: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

YouSendIt

Hi Sphilbrick. I've been working with YouSendIt to help them put together a solid draft to propose for consideration by the community. Ryan Vesey had offered to review the draft, but some real-life conflicts came up, leading to a longer Wiki-break[2]. I was wondering if I could borrow you for a second pair of eyes here to make sure we are being fair, non-promotional and not violating BLP rules by adding controversies that involve individuals. KuyaBriBri gave us some great feedback already, but only up through the first two sections.

If you have time to review it, I would be very appreciative. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited today, but I think I can get to it in the evening.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Sometimes I want to pull my hair out when I answer 20+ Request Edits, but can't get anyone to do mine ;-)
No worries on timing. I try to tell folks to expect a 30-day commenting period, before updating the article. WP:NORUSH and all. CorporateM (Talk) 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I ended up not getting back to my hotel until after 9 so I did not have the time I thought I would have last evening. Will look now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for such a thorough review. I made edits based on all your suggestions, with a couple tweaks. There are a couple spots where I requested clarification. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at SandyGeorgia's talk page.
Message added 18:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lova Falk talk 18:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rutherford vs. Rutherfurd

While I agree that there is no definitive explanation of how "Rutherfurd" became "Rutherfurd", the hypotheses are worth noting. See my changes to Rutherford, New Jersey, where I reinserted the various hypotheses, using the borough's 2007 Master Plan as a reference. I hope that this addresses your concerns raised at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so with a source. I'll see if I can get the town historian to weigh in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Authr logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Authr logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mail, you have some...

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

George Nozuka

Thanks very much for the wonderful photos. George is a very deserving artist and they certainly add an esthetic value to the page and make one appreciate his work more. Just a few days ago I was watching again Forgotten Children: The Story of Haiti's Restavecs and how he talked about his own experiences so candidly and I was going "Oh, man..." . Plus that I love his songs. You did justice with these great photos. I am just amazed of his work and those of Justin and Phillip as well. A very talented family. werldwayd (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Allie image

I left a message at your commons page asking if you would mind if I photoshopped the image to improve it a bit. Would you object to that?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded there, but Go for it. Thanks in advance.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Jon Jonnson Profile Shot.jpg

The number in the "permission" field should probably be marked with either {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{OTRS received}}. I'm guessing that you meant the former based on the edit summary. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Permissions is badly backlogged, and I was trying to move a bit too fast. I know you've picked up on a few of my errors recently, I just checked and I closed 220 items in the last week, so while I want to get my error rate down, it isn't too bad. Have you ever considered becoming an OTRS agent?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a 'Crat or Admin…

…but I do like your NewUserName proposal, only with the caveat of Time+Edits. I currently have 255 edits and have been with WP for a couple years. I'd hate to think I'd still be using an Assigned NEWB Editor name even now, instead of just being renamed to one which syncs with the rest of my Online Presence.

However, all-in-all, a very well thought out initial draft proposal. Kudos. — Love Robin (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback. (in case any tps are wondering, it is User naming convention proposal)
I agree that some new editors will not like the automatic name, but I'll emphasize that while I thought about the threshold a bit, I would expect that it would be chosen by consensus, and maybe 1000 is too high. Second, as I hinted, it probably should be some combination of time and edits, and maybe 1000, or 500 and two months or 200 and a year would be reasonable options which would have allowed you to convert over by now. As another possibility is to set a couple time and threshold hurdles, and then allow requests to be granted below that, in the same way we accept requests to be confirmed, with the main requirement being that the candidate shows some understanding of the user name policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read the proposal and have some comments:
  • Under CC-BY-SA, you have to attribute the copyright holder in the manner requested by the copyright holder. If the copyright holder can't choose his user name, the copyright holder isn't permitted to tell how he wants to be attributed. Would this mean that edits under these temporary user names violate CC-BY-SA?
  • Are you proposing that 18 million user names should be renamed to random names because they have too few edits? This would probably violate the attribution requirement in CC-BY-SA if the user has made any edits. You would also cause trouble for any users wishing to log in again since they might not be aware of the new user name.
  • Let's say that a user doesn't have an account on English Wikipedia but that he has thousands of edits on some other language edition of Wikipedia. One day, he suddenly visits English Wikipedia for some reason, and an account is automatically created due to SUL. Should he be given a random name or the same name as on the other projects?
  • I didn't make this clear in the proposal and now will, but my intention is that when they request the real name, that would trigger a unified name across all projects. This would be disastrous if done with the 18 million name,s but should not be onerous with under 100,000 names. Thus, if you have selected a new name in some other language Wikipedia, when you first visit the English (or any other language) Wikipedia, you have the same name, and will not have to generate a start name. This will also guarantee that we avoid the situation where someone has thousands of edits in another language, wants to used the name in en wiki, but Randy from Boise with three edits picked that name.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Random user names are harder to remember, so it is more difficult to type in the correct information at Special:UserLogin. In the end, lots of users would probably simply create a new account each time they wish to login because they have no clue what the previous account was called, or they might choose to make all edits using an IP address.
  • I wouldn't call it a random name—I agree that a random name is hard to remember. It consists of a four elements:
  1. Starts with "editor" although this is obviously open to discussion.
  2. Followed by our two letter abbreviation for language
  3. Followed by date (structured that way so it will sort appropriately)
  4. Followed by a sequence number.
We have fewer than 10000 new editors a day, so if they know the day they started, they only have to remember a four digit number.''--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's say that the account "EditorEn130401.00001" is created in April. In May, someone moves a file uploaded by "EditorEn130401.00001" to Commons. The file information page on Commons then refers to the name "EditorEn130401.00001". Also, someone translates his article to German, and the history is copied there, referring to him as "EditorEn130401.00001". In June, he reaches 1000 edits and requests to be renamed. All history on English Wikipedia is changed, but he is still called "EditorEn130401.00001" on the file information page on Commons. Also, since he doesn't have an account on German Wikipedia, the edits are assigned to user ID 0 there, and so the history on German Wikipedia won't be updated with the new user name. However, the user probably wants to be referred to under the same name everywhere. This is already a problem if someone renames his account, but it would probably get worse if we get a policy resulting in more accounts being renamed.--Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fair question, but as you point out, it already exists, so it isn't a new problem. How do we handle it for renames now? However, as noted above, if this user requests a rename upon reaching 1000 edits, that name should be a unified login, so it will be the same name on the German Wikipedia. I'm also assuming the EditorEnxxxxxx.xxxxx name would become a redirect, so it someone on the German Wikipedia sees something attributed to EditorEnxxxxxx.xxxxx, then upon going to that user page, they would be redirected to the new name.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS permissions at Talk:Annemarie Kremer

The template you added seems unable to cope with multiple URLs. The article has moved way on from the rather poor initial promotional guff that ANK Productions (presumably) has given permission to enter the public domain. It would be a shame if their text were given carte blanche to be present. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the template, I think. I mulled over that a bit, wondering if I should advise them against it, but in the end decided to let them make the call. Just because they have a license to use the text, doesn't mean we have to permit it, as I'm sure you know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Time will tell. The article is a much better one today than the bovine scatology they added, and I doubt anyone will tolerate that being re-added :) I suspect the editor who asked for permission is unlikely to reappear in whatever guise. Not checked the template, but I doubt you would have left it unfixed :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There were two adjacent urls, I separated with a space, so it doesn't look much different, but they should both work now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_32&oldid=1140206069"