User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 72
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 65 | ← | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 |
File:Power Rangers (2017 Official Theatrical Poster).png
Hi Sphilbrick. Would you mind taking a look at File:Power Rangers (2017 Official Theatrical Poster).png? You deleted some orphaned non-free revisions back in July, but a new version was uploaded a day or two ago. I tagged the file with {{furd}}, but the new version was just reverted back to the one left after your edit in July. I have no preference for either version and was just doing to NFCI clean up when I originally added the furd tag, but now I'm not sure if the file should be re-tagged with furd after the revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: While I'm not quite sure what was going on in the early changes the 21 September change was replacement of an image with an entirely different image which is not appropriate. It is also too large but it is also very different image. The reversion today was to the prior image which appears quite appropriate. I'll leave the images up today so you can see for yourself. Let me know if you think I'm missing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that the images were different, so I can understand why the revert was made. It's just that now there seems to be two orphaned revisions and I'm not sure what to do is such a case. Will they end up being "deleted" as is usually the case with furds or does something "special" need to be done since one of the version uploaded is completely different from the others? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Nothing special. Now that you have seen it, I deleted the prior versions. The only thing special that might be needed is if editors battle back and forth with different images. We will need to let them know that they should be creating different images with different filenames and them starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page to determine which one should be used. It is my view that it is perfectly fine to use the same name when one is making minor changes such as cropping, resizing, or tweaking photo parameters, but if it is a fundamentally different image, it should have a different name.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify things. My hunch was that is what should've been done, but my hunches aren't always right so I did press the issue with the editor who uploaded the "new" version of the file. Anyway, while I still have you on the phone (so to speak), I am wondering if what you wrote above also applies equally to logos. I see lots of "new" versions of logos being uploaded, even in cases where it actually seems more of a case of a being more "different" than "new". For example, I uploaded a non-free file File:Football Superleague of Kosovo logo.png, which was then later updated by a different version of the organization's logo. I have no problem if the current version is the more recent than the one I uploaded, but no new source was provided and they do look quite different. I was going to post something about it on the other editor's user talk, but they are fairly new to editing; so, (1) I didn't want to seem as if I was biting them, and (2) I didn't want to seem to be a pedantipedian. Should something be done to fix this or is it fine as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Yes, it absolutely does apply to logos. In the case you mentioned, you can see that I edited it to remove the visibility of the prior logos. In my opinion the editor that added the second version should have created a new name rather than uploading over the old version because it is fundamentally different, but had that been done, the old version that you uploaded would have been deleted. As you can see, some changes have been made.Theo's Little Bot looks for images that are too large to qualify for fair use and reduces their size. A more recent edit change the background so that it is transparent. In each case the older version is removed from visibility.
- Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify things. My hunch was that is what should've been done, but my hunches aren't always right so I did press the issue with the editor who uploaded the "new" version of the file. Anyway, while I still have you on the phone (so to speak), I am wondering if what you wrote above also applies equally to logos. I see lots of "new" versions of logos being uploaded, even in cases where it actually seems more of a case of a being more "different" than "new". For example, I uploaded a non-free file File:Football Superleague of Kosovo logo.png, which was then later updated by a different version of the organization's logo. I have no problem if the current version is the more recent than the one I uploaded, but no new source was provided and they do look quite different. I was going to post something about it on the other editor's user talk, but they are fairly new to editing; so, (1) I didn't want to seem as if I was biting them, and (2) I didn't want to seem to be a pedantipedian. Should something be done to fix this or is it fine as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Nothing special. Now that you have seen it, I deleted the prior versions. The only thing special that might be needed is if editors battle back and forth with different images. We will need to let them know that they should be creating different images with different filenames and them starting a discussion on the relevant article talk page to determine which one should be used. It is my view that it is perfectly fine to use the same name when one is making minor changes such as cropping, resizing, or tweaking photo parameters, but if it is a fundamentally different image, it should have a different name.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that the images were different, so I can understand why the revert was made. It's just that now there seems to be two orphaned revisions and I'm not sure what to do is such a case. Will they end up being "deleted" as is usually the case with furds or does something "special" need to be done since one of the version uploaded is completely different from the others? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- You asked if the editor should have been notified. In theory yes, but the ultimate process is so similar, it isn't much of a big deal in my opinion. I suspect some editors might prefer a cleaner process, and if anyone asked me how to handle it I could counsel that they use a different name when the image is materially different, but I think you made the right call in letting that one go.
- The good news is that you do not have to do anything. If you upload a more recent version over an older version, some bought somewhere will bring it to my attention and I'll hide the older versions. If you upload a fundamentally different version of a logo and create a new name, then when you remove the old one from the article link some bought somewhere will figure it out and bring it to the attention of admin's who will delete it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again for clarifying things. FWIW, I have no preference as to which logo is used; I only uploaded it to begin with because some editors were trying to use File:Kosovo FA.png as default, when a logo specific to the league itself was more appropriate. So, I searched for a more specific one and found the one I uploaded being used on the league's Facebook page. The problem is that no source url was given for the newer version of the logo; basically, the file was updated, but the non-free use rationale was left as is. I'm thinking this might be the source, but I'm not 100% sure. Can I just AGF that this is the most recent version of the logo and simply update the source url accordingly using the url I found or do I need to show exactly where this other editor got their version of the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That's a good point, and another good reason why fundamentally different images should have different names so that they have their own rationale, in particular the source. When the changes are tweaks, such as modified resolution or cropping, the sources almost certainly the same, but when there fundamentally different issues the sources different. Rather than guess, which might be a good guess, I think it would be fair to identify the editor who uploaded the alternative version and asked them where they found it. If they don't respond, we might go with your best gas which looks reasonable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again, I will ask post something on the other editors user talk and see if they remember where they found the image. You've been a great help and I appreciate all the time you spent helping me figure this out.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC) - For reference, I posted something at User talk:Hakuli#File:Football Superleague of Kosovo logo.png. If I got anything wrong or left anything out, please let me know and I'll fix it. Thanks again for all your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again, I will ask post something on the other editors user talk and see if they remember where they found the image. You've been a great help and I appreciate all the time you spent helping me figure this out.
- @Marchjuly: That's a good point, and another good reason why fundamentally different images should have different names so that they have their own rationale, in particular the source. When the changes are tweaks, such as modified resolution or cropping, the sources almost certainly the same, but when there fundamentally different issues the sources different. Rather than guess, which might be a good guess, I think it would be fair to identify the editor who uploaded the alternative version and asked them where they found it. If they don't respond, we might go with your best gas which looks reasonable.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Plots changed to 1-2 sentence summary of the whole cartoon for now. Also, I copy paste from http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/Screwball_Football, http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/Hobo_Gadget_Band, so they must have copy from their site. Or maybe, their site copied the Wikia plot. For now it is unknown, but everytime I create a new page, I always copy paste from Wikia. SquishyZ1 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @SquishyZ1: As a general rule, you should never copy from Wikia (this probably some exception but it doesn't occur to me). The reason isn't licensing, as much of the content (but not all) is acceptably licensed, but for the same reason Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source — it isn't published by a source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
New newsletter for Notifications
Hello
You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.
That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.
Please subscribe!
All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Screwball Football
Hello Sphilbrick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Screwball Football, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyvios have been removed by author. Thank you. GedUK 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I rev-deled the earlier versions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Hobo Gadget Band
Hello Sphilbrick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hobo Gadget Band, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copy vios have been removed. Thank you. GedUK 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I rev-deled the earlier versions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Request: Delete previous versions of audio file
Hi. Could you delete the previous versions of this audio file being used at Agharta (album)? Dan56 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56:
Done But there is no need to make such a request as we have a bot that identifies files in this category and reports them as a group --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56:
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image File:Paradise Jam Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Paradise Jam Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is being used.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Well, not any more.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Logo of the Falcons of Mount Zawiya Brigade.png
Hi Sphillbrick. Per our previous discussion regarding the updating of non-free files, I am wondering if anything other that adding {{furd}} should be done for File:Logo of the Falcons of Mount Zawiya Brigade.png. The file looks different from the previous version, but I'm not sure if that's enough of a difference to require the new version be uploaded as a separate file. My other concern has to do with the source of the file, the url for the older version is dead, so once again it's not clear where this new version has come from. I can ask the uploader to update the source url and other rationale info as well, but wanted your opinion on whether the file should have been uploaded as completely different file first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I agree with your concern. It is clearly not the same image and I don't think the right thing to do is to update the source. I suppose it is possible that the source updated the image so the source might be the same but it would definitely be cleaner if the editor uploaded the new image as a new name. We have bots that will search for and start the deletion process of the old image.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Should I post something on the uploader's talk page and ask them to reupload the file as a completely different file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Yes. Not a big enough deal that we should go to the mat over it, but worth suggesting that it would be consistent with best practices.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- File has been tagged for orphaned non-free revisions by a by a bot, so not sure what to do now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly:I undid it; I suspect it will get tagged again tomorrow - I note you haven't yet contacted uploader.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again Sphilbrick. I just added something to the uploader's user talk page, so I'll just have to wait and see how they respond. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader provided a new source link, but does not seem to have reuploaded the file separately. The source link is to YouTube and it looks like the same version of the logo, but the channel's description is not in English so I cannot verify the whether the YouTube link is OK per WP:COPYLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again Sphilbrick. I just added something to the uploader's user talk page, so I'll just have to wait and see how they respond. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly:I undid it; I suspect it will get tagged again tomorrow - I note you haven't yet contacted uploader.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- File has been tagged for orphaned non-free revisions by a by a bot, so not sure what to do now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: Yes. Not a big enough deal that we should go to the mat over it, but worth suggesting that it would be consistent with best practices.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Should I post something on the uploader's talk page and ask them to reupload the file as a completely different file? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Need to go further back?
Hello S. I didn't know whether Moonriddengirl would be getting tired of our posting on her talk page so I came here. It looks like you rev/deled the most recent fifty edits but the copy vio goes right back to the article creation on Aug 15, 2006. There have been just over 500 edits since then. I appreciate the info you've given me on r/d in regard to copyvios so I wanted to let you know what I found. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: My bad, I just used the default of the most recent page. I even looked at the "oldest" edit and saw the list, but forgot to look back. I'll fix it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No worries S. By coincidence there was a thread in the last couple days about mass reverting on one of the notice boards and the 50/500 thing came up so the situation was fresh in my memory :-) I posted this Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century#For future reference on the talk page for the article. If you want to add to it or want me to change anything (I did mention you but forgot to ask if that was ok) please feel free to let me know. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: Also by coincidence (I think) did you notice the prior discussion on the talk page was about the copyright status of that list?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- You bet S. In fact that is why I went to M's talk page first as she was a help at that time. I am guessing (and thus could be completely wrong) but I think that the r/ding of copyvios has become important over the last two years as it did not come up at the time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: Also by coincidence (I think) did you notice the prior discussion on the talk page was about the copyright status of that list?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- No worries S. By coincidence there was a thread in the last couple days about mass reverting on one of the notice boards and the 50/500 thing came up so the situation was fresh in my memory :-) I posted this Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century#For future reference on the talk page for the article. If you want to add to it or want me to change anything (I did mention you but forgot to ask if that was ok) please feel free to let me know. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:DonChristian has a new comment
- @Abdullah Alam: It's not my draft, please leave a message for @Krysnyc: --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Music Choice Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Music Choice Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
AFD closure
Are you able to close the AFD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping centres in Chatswood as you deleted the article under speedy deletion criteria G7? Ajf773 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Please restore Draft:Orlebar Brown
I am requesting restoration of Draft:Orlebar Brown, which you deleted. I would like to look over previous submitted versions and reasons for rejection to help with further submissions. Thank you in advance Aimeliholm (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Aimeliholm: Posts go at the bottom of the page, not the top.
- I restored it. Please make an offline copy, as it is likely to be deleted again if not materially changed soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Tarrare
This is probably block evasion - see this account from earlier with the same edits? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I ran across several, most already reverting at Copypatrol--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Missing the point
Hi, Sphilbrick
Just with regard to your long post on AN/I today, I'm afraid I think you're missing the point. The editor concerned isn't interested in that deletion review, or any other that's happened recently; he doesn't participate there. Except to complain about me, S Marshall, being allowed to close DRVs, which he's done a couple of times. He doesn't complain about other NACs and he doesn't take part in any of the discussions, it's purely personal. I'm afraid I've replaced Nyttend in his, err, affections. And there's a double standard in operation at DRV where I can do things he wouldn't be allowed to do, which I think is creating status issues in his mind... I'd be grateful if you could please not enable, encourage or advocate for this editor when he's targeting me, as it's not just Cryptic who's affected. Thanks very much—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: I don't think I've missed the point. I am well aware that William has difficulty with certain editors, and that sharpens his view of events beyond what I think is helpful or healthy. That said, he oftens does have a point, and he is correct that admins get passes for conduct that would earn a block or worse for non-admins. I think the close was unwise, and the block was atrocious.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I can't be objective about the block so I won't comment on it. Non-admin closes at DRV have been going on for at least five years, and I'm certainly not the most prolific non-admin closer (that title belongs to Armbrust). With all due respect for your ingenious arguments to the contrary, my close was clearly correct and the only arguments against it are of the form, "You can't do that because you don't have the Hat of Permission to Close". If the close had been wrong, Cryptic would've been the first to object. (Although he would have done so on my talk page instead of unilaterally overturning one of my DRV closes.)—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Luckily, I have to be away tomorrow, so perhaps that will allow me to calm down a bit. It would be best for all if I did not post my current thoughts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I can't be objective about the block so I won't comment on it. Non-admin closes at DRV have been going on for at least five years, and I'm certainly not the most prolific non-admin closer (that title belongs to Armbrust). With all due respect for your ingenious arguments to the contrary, my close was clearly correct and the only arguments against it are of the form, "You can't do that because you don't have the Hat of Permission to Close". If the close had been wrong, Cryptic would've been the first to object. (Although he would have done so on my talk page instead of unilaterally overturning one of my DRV closes.)—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI
Drmies closed the thread as no discussion. I replied to him on his talk page, please respond there and re-open the thread. Right now I am so disgusted with people around here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Please reconsider Master Electronics page
Hello - I was trying to successfully create my 1st wikipedia page about Master Electronics: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Master_electronics&action=edit&redlink=1 Which would be similar to other companies such as Digikey: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Digi-Key and Mouser https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mouser_Electronics that have their own pages. But before I could add my sources:
http://www.masterelectronics.com/company Master Electronics http://globalpurchasing.com/top-50-distributors/top-50-distributors-2014-15-master-electronics 15 electronics distributors https://www.linkedin.com/in/ike-nizam-0575a878 Ike Nizam http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1266886 http://www.manta.com/c/mb0x8mr/onlinecomponents-com-llc Onlinecomponents.com http://www.ebnonline.com/author.asp?section_id=3219&doc_id=277631 https://www.ecianow.org/directory/onlinecomponents-com/ http://www.taylorwisconsin.com/About-Us https://www.e-sonic.com/aboutus/ https://epsnews.com/2016/05/17/master-electronics-adds-anderson-power-products/ http://www.advancedmp.com/top-25-electronics-distributors-2012-2/ http://www.connectorsupplier.com/compro/master-electronics/ https://epsnews.com/2014/11/13/master/ http://globalpurchasing.com/distributor-news/master-electronics-acquires-electro-sonic
The page was nominated for speedy deletion and taken down. If you feel there is (A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) Then can you please advise why the Digikey and Mouser pages do hold significance?
If you feel there was (G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) then can you please advise what language was construed as strictly promotional and not informational as again it seems language used was similar to that used in the Digikey and Mouser posts.
Thanks in advance for your help and direction and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrell white (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Darrell white: While it is quite understandable you would ask the question, it is really useful to argue for retention of an article because it's comparable in some way to an existing article. See the following essay:
- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists
- Articles in mainspace must meet the standards for inclusion at the time they are initially created. You hadn't yet added some sources which suggest you shouldn't be creating an article and mainspace you should be creating it in draft space. Please try again and use:
- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation
- Which will start an article in draft space. Then you can ask for input on the article and won't be immediately deleted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick Thank you for your help.-DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrell white (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
By the way - quite an impressive reading list. Cheers Darrell white (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
Apologies, please restore User:MisterShiney/UserPage Template
Thanks. Put the speedy delete on the wrong sub page. -face palm- --MisterShiney ✉ 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I am a bit confused by this edit here. You wrote in the edit summary (Per WP:DOB), but final outcome of this discussion here allowed for full DOB. Valoem talk contrib 08:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem: According to WP:DOB If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. The subject complained, so I removed it. Do you read the policy differently?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, I can not see the OTRS ticket, but it appears that it was contested due to reliability not privacy, after adding a source which was not included in the prior version, I believe it resolved that issue (I didn't see any objection from Ponyo). But again, I can't see the ticket so I could be wrong, if you could post the OTRS that would be great. Also it appears the ticket was created in 2013, times have changed, Nolan is much more mainstream now, especially after the premier of Westworld, does the original ticket still apply? Valoem talk contrib 17:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem: As a minor technical note, admins can't see OTRS tickets only OTRS agents and only those who have been granted access to the specific queue containing the ticket. Regarding the edit, I provided more information at the article talk page Talk:Jonathan_Nolan.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, looks good to remove, I had no idea about this ticket, but thanks for following up. Valoem talk contrib 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem:My apologies for not including more information at the time I made the edit. One thing I keep thinking I've learned but apparently haven't, is that trying to go fast as a result of the enormous backlog sometimes slows things down. Had I identified at the time I made the edit that it was due to a current OTRS ticket I could've saved all of us some time. The odd thing is I've been doing a better job of including OTRS ticket numbers in edit summaries and on talk pages when relevant but for some reason did not do so in this case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, looks good to remove, I had no idea about this ticket, but thanks for following up. Valoem talk contrib 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Valoem: As a minor technical note, admins can't see OTRS tickets only OTRS agents and only those who have been granted access to the specific queue containing the ticket. Regarding the edit, I provided more information at the article talk page Talk:Jonathan_Nolan.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, I can not see the OTRS ticket, but it appears that it was contested due to reliability not privacy, after adding a source which was not included in the prior version, I believe it resolved that issue (I didn't see any objection from Ponyo). But again, I can't see the ticket so I could be wrong, if you could post the OTRS that would be great. Also it appears the ticket was created in 2013, times have changed, Nolan is much more mainstream now, especially after the premier of Westworld, does the original ticket still apply? Valoem talk contrib 17:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion at Bibliotheca Alexandrina
It is not clear why you deleted recent edits at Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Please be more helpful and explain when you take out so much. I do not see how you can call her careful work copyright infringement which seems to me the last refuge of refusers. She has worked very diligently on this page if you would take the time to review the page history.We want to encourage women to participate in Wikipedia. Without clear explanation speedy deletions are baffling. Please encourage new editors and not dismiss w/o explanation. Please end the "you're fired" attitude. Thank you.
- @Kmccook: There were a number of consecutive edits, some of which were clear copyright infringements. The way rollback works is that all consecutive edits by an editor are rolled back. I explained in the edit summary the source of the material. I looked at a number of things and making my decision but one thing it did not look at was the gender of the editor which I did not know and still do not know. It is troubling that you would raise that as an issue. I agree that we want to encourage new editors and should not dismiss without an explanation. I not only included a link to the source in the edit summary I added a note to the editor's talk page. I see that the editor has responded. Have you read the response? It is essentially agreement with our concern. I get that some new editors might think that site in the material is sufficient, but I naïvely thought a librarian would know better. If you are in correspondence with the editor please help the editor not to understand. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. With rare exceptions, we do not permit the exact copying of text from another source. In almost all cases it should be rewritten. In some cases, short excerpts are appropriate but they should be in quotation marks or set off by block quotes. Longer excerpts should be set off by block quote, but long block quotes are rarely appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not see what is troubling at all for me to ask that you not speedy deleter someone in a high and mighty way when if you would look to see what she has been doing for several months she has added a great deal to a page in need.And adding to your defense of your action she a librarian student and should know better is just low...she's new to Wikipedia. "Speedy deletion" is a dismissive and discouraging way to approach a new editor. It is so easy to discourage and takes far less time than encouraging. I am just exhausted trying to encourage women to edit and having my encouragement destroyed when someone speedy deletes. Think about what you do when you do it. Help new editors learn. Speedy deletes are the bane of my trying to encourage. New editors make mistakes, help them, don't erase them. It does not take much more time to be kind. I plead for kindness.
- @Kmccook: So which is it? Is the editor a student or a librarian? I expect librarians to understand copyright. I wish I could say the same about students, but the empirical evidence is that many do not. If the editor is not a librarian, but a student, I hope they revise their user page, to avoid confusion. I think it is fair to have different expectations for librarians, who almost always have graduate degrees than for students. Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You are correct. I will tell the student to correct. Thank you.
Thank you for your effort in protecting Wikipedia from copyright issues! Regarding your recent edit, the reference cited This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, and any changes made are indicated.
from the bottom of the source, which happens to comply with WP:Compatible license:CC BY, all versions and ports, up to and including 4.0
. Deep humility (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Deep humility, you may well be correct, but I looked again and did not find it. I do see this. Can you point me to the license so I know where to look next time? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the inquiry. Here it is! Deep humility (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Supplementory detail: Kumar, A; Mehta, D (2020), "article-36575", Rotor Syndrome, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, PMID 30335339, retrieved 2020-07-18
- When you scroll down to the bottom of the source, you will see
- Thank you for the inquiry. Here it is! Deep humility (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC.
- Deep humility, Fixed. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, and any changes made are indicated.
Bookshelf ID: NBK532306 PMID: 30335339
- Please feel free to let me know if you have any confusion! :)
Deep humility (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete this per G12, cant tag it, because the link is on the spamblacklist. Here's the copyvioreport. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
No hard feelings
Hey mate, we clearly see civility and accusations of bad faith very differently, but it's nothing personal - we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've removed my in kind response to old mate as I was being childish. I'm over it now. Thanks for taking the time to respond, hope there's no hard feelings. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Arise for Social Justice
Hi there! I appreciate your diligence with regards to copyright issues! I hope I made it clear enough in my edit summary for Arise for Social Justice to revert your deletion of my edits — I forgot to add the cc-by notice to the finding aid used. Hopefully all should be good now. Thank you again! -Fernmother (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fernmother, Got it thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)