Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) →OTRS..: respond |
→Brabble: new section |
||
Line 478: | Line 478: | ||
:::{{u|Godric on Leave}} I do not know your OTRS name, so I transfered this to Sphilbrick. This particular case has probably 50+ wiki volunteers involved. This is the most vocal client I have ever encountered. I advise no wikicommunity interaction with the client and referrals to WMF legal for all needs. Over the past few years it seems that wiki community members have no ideas for satisfying the client and their legal issues. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
:::{{u|Godric on Leave}} I do not know your OTRS name, so I transfered this to Sphilbrick. This particular case has probably 50+ wiki volunteers involved. This is the most vocal client I have ever encountered. I advise no wikicommunity interaction with the client and referrals to WMF legal for all needs. Over the past few years it seems that wiki community members have no ideas for satisfying the client and their legal issues. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::I was going to jokingly respond to Winged... that "Thanks" might be premature - but that doesn't appear to be a joke. I think you can now see the ticket, but I urge you to take Blue's counsel seriously.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 15:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
::::I was going to jokingly respond to Winged... that "Thanks" might be premature - but that doesn't appear to be a joke. I think you can now see the ticket, but I urge you to take Blue's counsel seriously.--[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#000E2F;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">S Philbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 15:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Brabble == |
|||
Hi {{u|Sphilbrick}} I noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kudpung&diff=prev&oldid=804517254 your question] to Kudpung about [[Brabble]]. I'm not responding there because Kudpung has retired from NPP, AFAIK. I've started a NPP review of the article. The [[User:Ralum23|creator]] almost certainly has a conflict of interest. I suspect they have been paid to write it. He refers to himself bramble on commons and shows clear signs of paid editing in other articles that he started. I'm also pretty sure that the office foto is a copyvio (I'm still looking into that). Here's what I think may be going on: The urgency for the review stems from the fact that google won't index the page. The app {{tq|scheduled to go live in October 2017}}, so the client is understandably getting impatient. It is also quite possible the editor won't get paid until the article shows up as a result on google. |
|||
Feel free to let them know that the article the review of the article will soon be completed and that it will probably be nominated for speedy deletion, perhaps PRODed, and that it will almost certainly be sent to AfD in it doesn't meet any of the criteria for CSD or PROD. All the best, [[User:Mduvekot|Mduvekot]] ([[User talk:Mduvekot|talk]]) 18:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:22, 9 October 2017
Thank you + invitation
Thank you for your contributions to articles related to women in sports!
We'd like to invite you to learn more about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in sports. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Participants page or visit one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Task forces for specific sports. Thanks!
Books and Bytes - Issue 23
Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017
- Library card
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
- Bytes in brief
Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleting "copyrighted" text
Seems you may have fallen into the old trap of assuming that Wikipedia mirrors are somehow the "original" texts that Wikipedia has copied when you deleted revisions from the Nipponosaurus article. A very quick glance at the article you linked[1] shows that it uses Wikipedia images, so it isn't a very long stretch to imagine they have copied our text too. I'll ping Lusotitan, so this can be clarified. If this turns out to be correct, it is very bad practice, and you should bring such issues up on the talk pages before drive-by deleting text. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Even more damning, I checked our article's revision history, and the text you deleted existed in the article before the mirror page you claim we copied was even online (2014).[2] So restore the revisions immediately, and please never make such haphazard deletions again. I wonder how much good Wikipedia text has been lost in this ridiculous way, as this talk page indicates this isn't the first time it happens. This tag[3] exists for a reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do about 100 copyvio checks a week. 99 out of 100 are fine. Some get mistagged due to mirrors. I think the type 1 versus type 2 errors are acceptable; I skip over obvious mirrors often. If you have a suggestion for how to reduce the error rate without materially slowing down the process, I'm all ears.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- If there is any reasonable doubt, just add a copyvio tag, then it will be determined by the regular editors of said page whether it is actually a copyvio or not. In this case, I don't see why "speed" should somehow be important. What's important is retaining perfectly good text. Anyhow, it took me less than two minutes to determine which text was the oldest (the mirror page even has a date at the bottom, so I just checked against the history of our article), so if I can, I'm sure you can too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not a reasonable process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I do about 100 copyvio checks a week. 99 out of 100 are fine. Some get mistagged due to mirrors. I think the type 1 versus type 2 errors are acceptable; I skip over obvious mirrors often. If you have a suggestion for how to reduce the error rate without materially slowing down the process, I'm all ears.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Have you ever participated in reviewing possible copyright issues at Copypatrol? That tool has, I believe, a list of mirrors, but may have missed some. Several hundred items are flagged every week. I urge you to handle a hundred or so, and see if you truly think adding a copyvio tag (and thereby increasing the load materially on other editors) is truly a sensible process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- " A very quick glance at the article you linked" [4] shows the following at the bottom of the page "Copyright © 2014 rareresource.com - All Rights Reserved." It may be that this notice is in error, but that is hardly obvious. That notice is more obvious to me than the fact that it may had Wikipedia images. Almost all pages have images, and Commons has millions. Perhaps you recognized them, but I did not, and I submit that it would be ludicrous to propose that one should double-check image on any page to see if they happen4ed to be in Commons or Wikipedia. Your proposed process doesn't work, and if I sound snippy, it's because your condescending attitude is off-putting.
- I am truly interested in improving the efficiency of detecting and correcting copyright violations and avoiding false positives, but your proposed process either makes no sense or you haven't explained it adequately.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Errr, is it "increasing their load" to provide them the opportunity to save text they have worked hard to write from getting deleted? Can you explain to me why it would be preferable to simply delete it without warning? Seems truly baffling and counterproductive to me. More importantly, it goes against our rules, see WP:Copyvio: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page "copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known", unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." So what I have proposed you should do is simply what you have to do according to our rules. Whether you think this is "not reasonable" or "doesn't work" is irrelevant, it is our rules, and you have to comply. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- You still don't get it.
- Errr, is it "increasing their load" to provide them the opportunity to save text they have worked hard to write from getting deleted? Can you explain to me why it would be preferable to simply delete it without warning? Seems truly baffling and counterproductive to me. More importantly, it goes against our rules, see WP:Copyvio: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page "copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known", unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." So what I have proposed you should do is simply what you have to do according to our rules. Whether you think this is "not reasonable" or "doesn't work" is irrelevant, it is our rules, and you have to comply. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I request again - handle 100 incidents at Copypatrol and see if you still support that advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what I "get" or not, but whether you follow our rules or not. I'd rather see this process slowed down than having perfectly fine text drive-by deleted (you're throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater). I will have to bring this highly disruptive behaviour up elsewhere if I see it again. That should be all. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it does matter whether you "get it". You are castigating a fellow editor for making a minor, understandable mistake, acting like it is a big deal, and showing no evidence that you understand the problem. So yes, the fact that you do not "get it" matters. If you "got it" you'd be thanking me for the hundreds of copyright errors I catch, not excoriating me over one I mishandled and acting like I shouldn't have missed it.
- It doesn't matter what I "get" or not, but whether you follow our rules or not. I'd rather see this process slowed down than having perfectly fine text drive-by deleted (you're throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater). I will have to bring this highly disruptive behaviour up elsewhere if I see it again. That should be all. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I request again - handle 100 incidents at Copypatrol and see if you still support that advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have made mistakes in the past. I will undoubtedly make mistakes in the future. When I make a mistake, I try to examine what went wrong so I can change my processes. I examine what went wrong in this case, but I don't think you realize that the only change in process is so ludicrous it's unbelievable.
- Here is what you think I should have done — upon seeing the full copyright all rights reserved notice on the bottom of the page I should ignore it. Even though it is accurate 99.99% of the time, is a tiny chance that the person placing it is an error so just ignore it. Next, go to Commons and memorize the 41 million images. That might take a few minutes, but it will be helpful so you can look at a page purporting to be fully copyrighted and see if you recognize any of the images on the page as actually being from Commons. If you recognize one of the images, you will realize that may be the copyright notice was an error and they've actually copied from Wikipedia.
- Can you actually comprehend how ludicrous your proposal is? You actually proposed that I should do this.
- And please tone down the rhetoric. A less than 1% error rate does not remotely qualify as "throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater".--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/ANEWSicon.png/150px-ANEWSicon.png)
Nakon • Scott
Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee
- ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
- Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.
- You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
- Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
- In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.
- Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Charlotte Lewis DYK nomination
Hi there, just a heads up that your nomination was not completed successfully. You need to follow the instructions here, which will walk you through it. Also, why are there two articles on the same person (one, two)? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: Oh dear.
- As part of a women in red initiative to work on female Wikipedia Olypians without an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/55
- I created a list of all US female Olympic basketball players:
- User:Sphilbrick/US_Olympic_Basketball_players
- And decided to work on the red link for 1976 (1980 is a special case).
- Charlotte Lewis was a blue link but because it referred to an actress so I created Charlotte Lewis(basketball) And began working on it, completely missing that there already was Charlotte Lewis (basketball). (The difference being whether there is a space before the parenthetical or not).
- What makes it more embarrassing is that I worked on the other article, albeit three years ago. Still I should've remembered. Not only that, I contributed almost all of the content.
- I haven't yet figured out what to do except the newer one is much better except that I see I overlooked the world university games and should add it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up {{u|Sphilbrick]]; I must admit, it made for a good laugh! I agree that the new one is better. How about copying the content over to the old page, while ensuring that you keep any content (e.g., the world university games) that is only on the old version? The new page could then be deleted, and it could then be looked on as a good rewrite of an old article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding content deletion
I was thinking that you could have just removed the copyright part. Ketan Hemnani (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am taking about this page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dama_Dam_Mast_Qalandar Actually the content there is little bit misguided. As I am also a Sindhi speaker and therefore I know the reality and I have gone through various articles also before making changes. There has been confusion in the article. The article is trying to place two different personalities one and the same. And that needs to be corrected Ketan Hemnani (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ketan Hemnani: I don't fully remember the details, but when an edit includes a substantial amount a copyrighted material, the process is to revert the edits. Please make additions in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Cognitive capacity
Hah. Good catch. It honestly didn't strike me as well written enough to be a copyvio. TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: This is too funny. Every morning, I tried to do some copyright work, and occasionally I see an article that has been tagged for some issue and I'm surprised that didn't look at it and think that it was very likely to be a copyvio and do a quick check. But I agree with you, this wasn't particularly well written, and you're right to be surprised that it was a copyright issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Robert N. Clinton
The information is from his website that is not copyrighted material. I am his research assistant and the information is allowed for common license.Soswitch93 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Soswitch93: I believe I found the information here:
- https://isearch.asu.edu/profile/321397
- Which does not have a free license, at least not one I could find.
- Can you point me to a site that does contain the material and has a free license?
- There will still be some problems including the puzzling decision by Arizona State University to use the information without attribution.
- In addition, as his research assistant, you have a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. I'll provide a link for a way to request edits in such cases:
- Wikipedia:Simple_COI_request --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Wrongly deleted page: British HIV Association
Hi Sphilbrick, you deleted the page I created for the British HIV Association (BHIVA), on grounds of copyright breach. I agree there is some overlapping content between this page and BHIVA's own website. However this page content was requested and approved by BHIVA's chair and executive officers for free use on Wikipedia so it is not a breach of copyright. Please could you re-instate the page, or let me know what I need to do in order to confirm that it's ok? Thanks Regordane (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Regordane: Unfortunately there are two problems with this request. The first is that content in Wikipedia is created by editors who are independent of the subject. We don't permit or encourage organizations or individuals to write about themselves. In the case of existing articles, we recognize that people close the subject may have special knowledge of shortcomings or errors but we prefer that those be handled by posting requests for improvements on article talk pages. We also have a formal process for requesting edits to existing pages: Wikipedia:Simple_COI_request
- The second issue is that Wikipedia strongly respects copyright. In the case of either photos or text, in general we need the material to be freely licensed. This is common in the case of photos but less common in the case of text as it is often the case that text design for a different use is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. In the rare case that the wording is acceptable, the holder of the copyright needs to file a permission statement and have it filed with OTRS. Is quite common for someone to state that they are willing to allow their words to be used in Wikipedia, but our licensing requirements are much stronger than that, essentially requiring that the words can be used by anyone anywhere for any purpose and can be modified. It is not uncommon that an organization initially approves usage of wording and when they find out the license requirements, reconsiders.
- It would be best for an independent editor not affiliated with the organization, to decide what should be included in the article and how it should be written.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
A-F
I think your A-F taxonomy of copyright misconceptions is worthy writing up somewhere, both for general education of newbies and for gentle correction of offenders. I don't think the best place is a new essay or whatever, but integration into something existing. I haven't wandered into copyright stuff much so I don't have an idea where offhand. EEng 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @EEng: Thanks for the comment. Oddly I had initially decided to just make a comment about the specific situation, but then I decided to add a couple more examples and as I wrote them the list kept growing. I agree it might be useful somewhere along not immediately sure where the best place is. Years ago, I decided I wanted to work on cleaning up our copyright discussions because they are fragmented and in many places but the more I looked into it the more it became like cleaning out the Augean stables and I never did anything about it. Maybe time to try again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- You're right on the money there, if you don't mind me saying, though there is a rare "G" case which you may remember as one of the few that MRG banned, which is someone who knows US (or wherever) copyright law and asserts that if it passes Copyright Law muster, that it's fine to include here, not realizing that we can set our own inclusion criteria... CrowCaw 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I threw that list together in a few minutes so if I only missed one I will be stunned but you make a good point. Actually, I'm slightly surprised it didn't occur to me, as I have often been in copyright disputes where I have to explain that our internal rules are more stringent than US copyright law for deliberate reasons. This mainly comes up in the context of the length of quoted material, where we deliberately begin removing material even though it may be shorter than what might pass muster in a trial, if only because those rules are not fully objective.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, and I didn't mean to sound critical for "missing one"; I think that list did an excellent job of characterizing what we deal with, especially with the emphasis on AGF that almost always people aren't intentionally violating. :) CrowCaw 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. When we template someone with, "You cannot just use stuff you found on the internet", the recipient thinks, "Well, they don't understand – that doesn't apply to what I did because the website didn't carry a copyright notice", or "That doesn't apply to what I did because I provided a full citation", or...; then they do it again and get blocked. By addressing these misconceptions directly perhaps a lot of drama can be avoided. The problem, of course, is template-bloat and helppage-bloat and everythingelse-bloat. EEng 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm growing more interested in formalizing this, if I can figure out how not to make it just one more essay on copyright.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. When we template someone with, "You cannot just use stuff you found on the internet", the recipient thinks, "Well, they don't understand – that doesn't apply to what I did because the website didn't carry a copyright notice", or "That doesn't apply to what I did because I provided a full citation", or...; then they do it again and get blocked. By addressing these misconceptions directly perhaps a lot of drama can be avoided. The problem, of course, is template-bloat and helppage-bloat and everythingelse-bloat. EEng 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I threw that list together in a few minutes so if I only missed one I will be stunned but you make a good point. Actually, I'm slightly surprised it didn't occur to me, as I have often been in copyright disputes where I have to explain that our internal rules are more stringent than US copyright law for deliberate reasons. This mainly comes up in the context of the length of quoted material, where we deliberately begin removing material even though it may be shorter than what might pass muster in a trial, if only because those rules are not fully objective.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
one more type of copyright violator
I found one person who had cut-and-pasted an entire article which had the source in it, then simply removed the source! He then did minimal rewriting, adding "sources" but never again mentioning his original source, nor ever crediting the actual source. When I found it, the editor accused me of somehow being responsible for tormenting him - though a huge number of violations by the same editor have also been found. What I found amusing is that the editor had earlier warned others about copyright rules, which means he knew what he was doing from the start. Type "G" for your list, I suppose. Now back to making sure the hurricane does not hit me :( Collect (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Vladimir_Putin_and_Donald_Trump_at_the_2017_G-20_Hamburg_Summit_%284%29.jpg/220px-Vladimir_Putin_and_Donald_Trump_at_the_2017_G-20_Hamburg_Summit_%284%29.jpg)
- Your example greatly out trumps mine, but it does remind me of an example I've seen more than once. An editor copied a long description of an organization, and pasted it with exactly one change — the name of the organization! I may have to expand my list, but I'll have to have a grouping, because well examples a through F are all copyright violations, they all were potential good faith violations. Both your example in my example cannot possibly be characterized as good faith. Stay safe.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- And here's another one! Someone who was told (or claims they were told) by the copyright holder that they have permission to post here, and does so. Again, good faith but copyvio. CrowCaw 16:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen that. Related to F, but different enough to deserve mention. Commonly, some intern is told to update an organisation's page, and told they can use the content on the org's website. It sounds plausible to them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You seem helpful...
Left you a question on OTRS. I assume there is no cross wiki notification going on there. TJWtalk 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- My understanding is that OTRS is outside the Wikimedia universe, so notifications don't work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like I may be wrong, the OTRS wiki does seem to be part of Wikimedia but I think your guess that I wouldn't automatically get notifications is correct. Not sure why. The OTRS system itself is outside of Wikimedia which is maybe what I was thinking of.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- However, I do see that I get an email notification of the message so you shouldn't have to crosspost.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it runs MediaWiki but it's not part of the unified login system, presumably to avoid any damage that could be done by a compromised account. Anyway, much appreciated. TJWtalk 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it runs MediaWiki but it's not part of the unified login system, presumably to avoid any damage that could be done by a compromised account. Anyway, much appreciated. TJWtalk 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
![]() |
Thank you for your hard work. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 01:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick,
Saw your edit at the Greensboro massacre article, and I'm trying to understand the issue (so that I don't end up making the same mistake). It's hard to know what the other user did, since those edits aren't visible, but judging from your copyright comment it appears that he reproduced sections of an original article, rather than stating the information in his own words, and listing the source as his reference? Gulbenk (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Gulbenk: Yes, the editor copied and pasted sections of an article. The source had a terms of use section which seem to allow reuse with attribution but it specifically excluded commercial use. While of course, we are not a commercial enterprise, we do permit reuse of our material for commercial use so allowing the inclusion that material would have been problematic.
- I can temporarily restore the visibility if you would like to see the material, but it was either a direct copy and paste or a very close paraphrase of the underlying material. It would be acceptable to source but it should've been written in the editor's own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
A beer for you!
![]() |
Sphilbrick - You deserve a beer! I want to thank you for your help in fixing my copyright problems. You were very kind through the whole process and very helpful. I've learned from my mistakes and I hope this will make me become a better contributor. Thanks again, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC) |
Hey, you were supposed to delete both pages! Why do you have to move the page to another page? AaronWikia (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @AaronWikia: There were two entries in the CSD list, I processed one, then the other. I wondered if it was set up right. What needs to be done?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- IIRC, it wasn't set up as a deletion, but as a move which required a deletion. I'll be happy to fix it, but I need to know what needs to be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've reverted to Ice hockey by country as this is the title that was established by WP:RM. I'm not sure what you were doing there, Sphilbrick. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Tavix: It appeared in the uncontroversial deletions requests because it was a requested move but required deletion of a redirect. Those are usually routine, but occasionally the requester mal-forms the request, and it results in a small mess requiring cleanup. This isn't the first time it has happened, but it will be the last time I'm involved in one, as I will pass on the next request. After I processed the first one, I noticed another one that seemed very similar and that raised a red flag and I wondered if there was something wrong. There was and I don't know how to reconstruct it so I'll stay away from them in the future. Thanks for the cleanup.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Clarification on Thermal Conduction page edits
User Suman B R recently added content to the Thermal conduction page. It was deleted and the following reason was listed:
Reverted good faith edits by Suman B R (talk): Copyright issue re https://phys.org/news/2014-12-what-is-heat-conduction.html.
Could you elaborate a little further for me on what the copyright issue was? Is it possible to view the contribution?
Many thanks! Smojarad (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Smojarad: I have temporarily removed the revision deletion so that you can compare the edit to the source. We can discuss it further tomorrow--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Smojarad: --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Thank you for catching this. I see what the issue is and will follow up with him. Smojarad (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Please be more careful with speedy deletions
From molehill to mountain and now, at least temporarily, back to molehill. I request that this be left alone for 48 hours, and then, the next post, if necessary, should solely consist of an appropriate venue for further discussion
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference: Historical pages are not eligible for deletion, nor are pages that have previously survived a deletion discussion eligible for CSD. Nor is it good practice to create redlinks in Wikipedia space (see [5]). Reading is disrupted by the red links now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Hasteur set you up by marking the page for CSD, but you are the administrator of record here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the fault is not that I created it in the "wrong" space. That's an absurd piece of wikilawyering if I ever read it. There's no reason not to create drafts in draft space. It was widely advertised at the time, including through CD, so there was no shortage of views either through the project or through the wider community. I created it because the OP here, Unscintillating was being obstructive in AfD discussions and multiple editors felt that documenting a specific notability guideline was necessary. The proposal failed but the AfD drama also ceased. As I told Hasteur, there is simply no need for it anymore. I endorse Sphilbrick's action and if Unscintillating really feels that bothered by the red links, he can either delete them or create a new version. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Hey Eggishorn just calm down a bit, such attacks will make you unpopular. I'm trying as softly as possible to find a solution here. Nobody is discussing what your 'draft' was about, only what to do with it and we couldn't second guess your recent chat with Hasteur. The fact is you created a draft based on the word 'draft' in Draft namespace. I should know what the Draft namespace is for - I am one of the people who created it. If you would care to look around you, for years people have been creating such projects either in their own user space or as a Wikiproject sub page. Nobody is criticising you for it, just pointing out that it was not the best place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
COI Requests
Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you had the time to review one or two COI requests.[6][7] They are both items I would expect to take a bit of time, but even if you only have time for one, it would be greatly appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try, but I have some prior commitments I must address first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yikes, you were right about it taking some time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wish there was some way I could make it easier, but it is always awkward and inefficient to propose changes on Talk in this manner. Editors often say to break it up into smaller changes, but that doesn't actually work either. I understand if you don't have time for it. I also don't mind waiting a week or two if you want to get around to it later. It's not urgent. CorporateM (Talk) 10:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Big family event this weekend, but should have some time after that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Thank you in advance. I will wait patiently for you to get around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Board meeting this evening, but I'm looking at Bain, and should have some comments tomorrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Thank you in advance. I will wait patiently for you to get around to it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Big family event this weekend, but should have some time after that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wish there was some way I could make it easier, but it is always awkward and inefficient to propose changes on Talk in this manner. Editors often say to break it up into smaller changes, but that doesn't actually work either. I understand if you don't have time for it. I also don't mind waiting a week or two if you want to get around to it later. It's not urgent. CorporateM (Talk) 10:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yikes, you were right about it taking some time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Philbrick! Going through it line by line like that must have been quite exhausting, but at least it has been thoroughly reviewed. I'll pry wait a bit to make sure it's settled before nominating it for GA. I presume you're not going to look at the other COI item later on are you? It's a little easier (three specific problems rather than a full draft), but I figure you are probably pooped out by now ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct, plus, I just got a call about a meeting not on my calendar. --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Lester Hutchinson
Sir, I am very sorry for copying from http://spartacus-educational.com/TUhutchinsonL.htm which may be a copyright violation. Thanks for correcting my mistakes. But I would like to ask you if, the information from two other books - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=mScBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&dq=Hugh+Lester+Hutchinson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibuce9hL7WAhUGEpQKHXq5ANsQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Lester%20Hutchinson&f=false & https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Y3d9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&dq=Hugh+Lester+Hutchinson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibuce9hL7WAhUGEpQKHXq5ANsQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Lester%20Hutchinson&f=false and another website - https://microform.digital/boa/collections/36/indian-communists-and-trade-unionists-on-trial-the-meerut-conspiracy-1929-1933/key-data can be given in the article. Also, the infobox had no information exclusively from http://spartacus-educational.com/TUhutchinsonL.htm. So, can it be reverted? Thanking you, Che12PM 14:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Che12Guevara:
- Both books:
- G., Lilleker, Darren (2004). Against the Cold War : the history and political traditions of pro-Sovietism in the British Labour Party 1945-89. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9781850434719. OCLC 60715345.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 1933-, Haithcox, John Patrick,. Communism and nationalism in India : M.N. Roy and Comintern policy, 1920-1939. Columbia University. Research Institute on Communist Affairs. Princeton, New Jersey. ISBN 9780691620695. OCLC 905863861.
{{cite book}}
:|last=
has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- G., Lilleker, Darren (2004). Against the Cold War : the history and political traditions of pro-Sovietism in the British Labour Party 1945-89. London: I.B. Tauris. ISBN 9781850434719. OCLC 60715345.
- are almost certainly subject to full copyright, can probably be used as a reference, and short excerpts, if set off by quote marks or block quotes can be used. Otherwise, the material should be written in your own words and supported by the appropriate reference.
- The website clearly indicates full copyright for digital images, and I think text so I think the same rules apply but I haven't looked as closely at that one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked your nomination above. Added it to Template talk:Did you know and the article's talk page. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I contacted the school where she played and the school where she currently coaches to see if I could get a photo and one of them has responded so I've added a photo to the article. They were interested when I mentioned that it would appear on the front page and asked when it would be. I see that it is now in the list of approved nominations but I'm not sure how to know when it will be scheduled. Do I just monitor and wait till I see it show up in a loading queue, or is there some better way of figuring out when it will be scheduled? --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thought that I'd changed enough. I know there were some sentences that were the same, but I though they were factual enough that copying direct was fine. Will try again.Naraht (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It looked far too close for me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, fall back position is to start from the text out of the 1920 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (pre-1923 means no copyright issues) and then fold in from the other document as appropriate. As for the merge in the 1990s, I'm going to try to make that a separate article as well.Naraht (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Naraht: OK, please make sure your edit summary mentions the date of the source text. There's a tool which looks for copyright issues, and it isn't smart enough to look at dates, so it will help avoid inadvertant reversion if you mention it in the edit summary. While the tool will still flag it, the humans that use the tool will look at the edit summary.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. I wonder if that tool could pull the part of the tool that converts google book addresses to cite. *that* does scrape the year of publication. See http://reftag.appspot.com/?book_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D1qoVAAAAIAAJ . I also tend to include <!-- Information copied from 1920 Baird's Manual so no copyright issues--> into the text as well.Naraht (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, fall back position is to start from the text out of the 1920 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (pre-1923 means no copyright issues) and then fold in from the other document as appropriate. As for the merge in the 1990s, I'm going to try to make that a separate article as well.Naraht (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/ANEWSicon.png/150px-ANEWSicon.png)
Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box
- Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
- Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.
- You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.
- Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
- A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
G13
A user might be requesting undeletion of a page which you deleted as G13 – see User talk:Stefan2#Deleting my sandbox draft. However, it's possible that the user actually is talking about the talk page of the deleted page. If the page is undeleted, note that some early revisions of the page were deleted as a copyright violation. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice I left a note on your page is am not perfectly sure which one it is.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Tajama Abraham
On 3 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tajama Abraham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tajama Abraham survived Hurricane Hugo by hiding in a commercial refrigerator with her family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tajama Abraham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tajama Abraham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex ShihTalk 04:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to join Women in Red
![]() You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi there, Sphilbrick. I'm really happy to see you have joined us as a member of WiR. With your interest in baseball, you should be able to add many more biographies of women participants. Feel free to comment on our WiR talk page. If you run into any problems, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.
You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Hello, just to let you know, it seems you deleted the revision of my removal of the copyvio, rather than the IPs addition. Thanks –72 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @72: Oops, correct. Fixed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, and on the topic of copyvios, would you be able to take a look at revisions Special:Diff/792567463–Special:Diff/801408086 of the page Rolls-Royce Sweptail? I believe this is a direct copy of [8]. Earwig's detector doesn't seem to work on the link, but a manual "Ctrl/Cmd + F" of each paragraph of the wiki article and the external link show a direct copy (except for the very first sentence). Thanks –72 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. (I didn't notice you provided a link, I found the same site.)S Philbrick(Talk) 14:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, and on the topic of copyvios, would you be able to take a look at revisions Special:Diff/792567463–Special:Diff/801408086 of the page Rolls-Royce Sweptail? I believe this is a direct copy of [8]. Earwig's detector doesn't seem to work on the link, but a manual "Ctrl/Cmd + F" of each paragraph of the wiki article and the external link show a direct copy (except for the very first sentence). Thanks –72 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
2011-12 WBB Rankings
I didn't create the 2011-12 WBB Rankings page. That page was created by OC Native back on October 31, 2011. The only thing I did was go in and place the weekly date the rankings came out on and changed it to be women's basketball rankings as it was previously just down as basketball rankings, which makes it men's rankings instead of women's rankings. Like you I haven't had the time to do much of anything, and I don't know that I will. If you have an easier way to do it, feel free to do so. I hadn't even been on the rankings page there since the day I filled in the preseason rankings and changed it to be a women's rankings set instead of men's. Bigddan11 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Bigddan11: OK, sorry, I must have misread the history. I'll drop in week by week ratings, and if someone else wants to do the color coded stuff, they can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at File:Eehllogo.jpg? It appears that someone tried to overwrite the file with a completely unrelated image. The "new" version might be OK uploaded separately as a non-free album cover, but it's completely unrelated to the older version of the file. This was probably just a new editor not familiar with uploading files, but I can't revert back to the older version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: I agree. I reverted to the earlier image and left a note for the uploader--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems unlikely. I had noticed an FUR, but that was associated with the more recent image not the original image. Unfortunately, the upload or has not edited in a year. I don't care to take the time to research where it might've come from and make up a FUR. Does that leave us any option other than deletion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- As the file has an obviously incorrect copyright tag, it qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:F9. However, if the file would qualify for inclusion under WP:NFCC on at least one page, I tend to prefer to tag it as missing evidence of permission or listing it for discussion in case someone wants to fix the file. For example, User:Salavat fixes many incorrectly tagged non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking on this Sphilbrick. The album cover is still showing up as an old revision, but I'm not sure if {{furd}} would work in this case. It apppears to have also been uploaded as File:Ragatanga150x150.jpg, so two of the same non-free album cover are not needed. As for the "PD-self" logo, I agree with Stefan2, but I have been unable to find a proper source to determine whether this logo was even ever used as claimed. There is a Russian Wikipedia article about the league which uses the same logo as ru:Файл:Vehl logo.png and an Ukrainian Wikipedia article which uses uk:Файл:Vehl.jpg. Both give hockeyus
.at .tut .by /image /vehl .jpg as their source, but that url has been overwritten. I think that file might need to be deleted if we cannot verify a proper source for it. FWIW, the uploader of the file does not appear to have edited in more than a year, so not sure how much asking them to clarify will help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC) - Since we can't tell if it's the correct logo or not, I listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 6#File:Eehllogo.jpg. It seems that {{fact}} works on the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, so I added that tag to those projects. I'm not sure how or if we should inform those projects of this problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking on this Sphilbrick. The album cover is still showing up as an old revision, but I'm not sure if {{furd}} would work in this case. It apppears to have also been uploaded as File:Ragatanga150x150.jpg, so two of the same non-free album cover are not needed. As for the "PD-self" logo, I agree with Stefan2, but I have been unable to find a proper source to determine whether this logo was even ever used as claimed. There is a Russian Wikipedia article about the league which uses the same logo as ru:Файл:Vehl logo.png and an Ukrainian Wikipedia article which uses uk:Файл:Vehl.jpg. Both give hockeyus
- As the file has an obviously incorrect copyright tag, it qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:F9. However, if the file would qualify for inclusion under WP:NFCC on at least one page, I tend to prefer to tag it as missing evidence of permission or listing it for discussion in case someone wants to fix the file. For example, User:Salavat fixes many incorrectly tagged non-free files. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that seems unlikely. I had noticed an FUR, but that was associated with the more recent image not the original image. Unfortunately, the upload or has not edited in a year. I don't care to take the time to research where it might've come from and make up a FUR. Does that leave us any option other than deletion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Jim (James) Boyer
Hi Sphilbrick. I believe you recently deleted Jim (James) Boyer's page that was in my sandbox...Could you please put it back up so I can make the changes necessary so it can be added? I just have not had the time to do it, but I will be working on it shortly. I hate to have to rewrite all of his credits. He was producer Phil Ramone's engineer for many years as well as a producer in his own right and does deserve a page on Wikipedia. I just need more time to get it finished. Thank you Dmileson (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Dmileson: I looked through my last 500 deletions, but did not find it. Do you remember the exact name? Unfortunately, I am running out now for an all day event, so cannot attend to it until this evening, although if you identify the name, any tps is authorized to restore it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Did you check the user's talk page? At the bottom, there's a notification template, {{db-afc-notice}}, telling that User:Dmileson/sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion, and the page seems to have been deleted by you. Is this the correct page? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Duh, I did not. I looked at what links here, or started to, then realized it wouldn't list deleted pages. I then looked at my recent deletions, and searched for "Boyer". You approach was smarter. And now I really have to run.
- @Dmileson:
Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Dmileson (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
OTRS..
Recently, I came across ticket:2017062710013134 from Talk:Raheja Developers and wished to view the ticket courtesy having some personal interest about the topic.(I actually got the t/p protection enabled...).But it shows:--We are sorry, you do not have permissions anymore to access this ticket in its current state.
Any ideas?Is it rel. to some specific queue; I am not subscribed to?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Godric on Leave: It took me a couple minutes but I figured it out. It got transferred to a chapter queue. I'm guessing you don't have access to that so your guess is correct. The current owner is @Bluerasberry:; I'm guessing you know that editor? My suggestion is to start with him. I didn't look at the entire ticket, but based on the last entry, I'll guess he will certainly be happy to have you take it over so either he can move it someplace that you can access it or if he gives me permission I'll do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Fixing Ping - @Bluerasberry: --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks! :)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Godric on Leave I do not know your OTRS name, so I transfered this to Sphilbrick. This particular case has probably 50+ wiki volunteers involved. This is the most vocal client I have ever encountered. I advise no wikicommunity interaction with the client and referrals to WMF legal for all needs. Over the past few years it seems that wiki community members have no ideas for satisfying the client and their legal issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I was going to jokingly respond to Winged... that "Thanks" might be premature - but that doesn't appear to be a joke. I think you can now see the ticket, but I urge you to take Blue's counsel seriously.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Godric on Leave I do not know your OTRS name, so I transfered this to Sphilbrick. This particular case has probably 50+ wiki volunteers involved. This is the most vocal client I have ever encountered. I advise no wikicommunity interaction with the client and referrals to WMF legal for all needs. Over the past few years it seems that wiki community members have no ideas for satisfying the client and their legal issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks! :)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Brabble
Hi Sphilbrick I noticed your question to Kudpung about Brabble. I'm not responding there because Kudpung has retired from NPP, AFAIK. I've started a NPP review of the article. The creator almost certainly has a conflict of interest. I suspect they have been paid to write it. He refers to himself bramble on commons and shows clear signs of paid editing in other articles that he started. I'm also pretty sure that the office foto is a copyvio (I'm still looking into that). Here's what I think may be going on: The urgency for the review stems from the fact that google won't index the page. The app scheduled to go live in October 2017
, so the client is understandably getting impatient. It is also quite possible the editor won't get paid until the article shows up as a result on google.
Feel free to let them know that the article the review of the article will soon be completed and that it will probably be nominated for speedy deletion, perhaps PRODed, and that it will almost certainly be sent to AfD in it doesn't meet any of the criteria for CSD or PROD. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)