User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 26

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 20

←

Archive 24

→

3rd Field War of Kosovo and anti-Turkish POV

Is there an edit war or something at the fields of Kosovo? I tried to use the Talk Page but did not help much. Too many reverts in one day... --E4024 (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Not an edit war yet, but could become one. I glanced at the edits, can't do much more now, but I urge you to take the high road and post on the talk page why material should or should not be added or removed. I'll ask the others (in my morning) to do so as well. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to occupy this much of your time but could you also see here the scolding expression about a very respected Turkish academician and former Minister of Culture, Mr Talat Halman (if you have time you can see more in context in the paragraphs above the said insulting sentence)... Thanks and hope you are enjoying a nice Sunday. --E4024 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My Sunday has been challenging; I went out to pick up some railroad ties, and the truck overheated. Took me hours to get home. Back on topic, I posted a request to User:Irvi Hyka and will monitor that situation. I also promised another editor I would look into an issue at another page; I took a quick look at Rami, but that looks complicated. I won't be able to do that one justice.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the truck. I just experienced a few days ago a similar problem the very first day I put a brand new car in my parking lot. I am not the type of man crazy for motor vehicles (in fact bought one after a lot of time without having any) but I was really depressed to see I could not play with the new toy. Thanks for your help in trouble-shooting (not the car, the other ones :-). Best.

Andrew Wyeth Paintings

I think we've got things wrapped up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Images of Andrew Wyeth Paintings. If you want to close the discussion and reply to the OTRS ticket, I don't think anyone would object. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Sounds like a well-run and productive discussion. I've responded at OTRS, I'll wait to hear before I close the discussion.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ticket 2012040410008295

Hi. After you merged two tickets I corrected the number here. I also noticed that you have not approved File:Scholastic Inc After Restoration 2007.jpg with the same number. Did you forget or is there another reason? --MGA73 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the ones I handled in my first couple weeks as an agent. I know I misunderstood merging at first, it seems logical to me that you would merge the new email into the old, but the correct process is the reverse, which means I make a couple errors (doing what made sense, rather than following the process literally). I suspect that is why I have the ticket number wrong. As for failing to add the permission, simply an oversight, now corrected. I've caught a couple instances of adding the template and forgetting to notify the emailer, but this is the first one I've noticed with the reverse. I now make a point of making sure I see the ticket before sending the confirmation, so I think my own personal process has now improved. Thanks for catching it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The important is that it is now fixed. Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Darkwarriorblake's talk page.
Message added 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback NFCR uploader notification

I responded at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content review#Notification of the uploader - should it be required?. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification board proposal

When do you think you'll bring that forward, and where at? Village pump technical or proposals? I made a similar comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Noticeboard tool but it was never commented on. Ryan Vesey 13:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted at proposals. I fear I didn't sell it well enough, as it is getting almost no traffic. I like your proposal, which means on wouldn't even have to be at a notice board. I just thought it would be easier to implement if you were already trying to make a report at a notice board.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Your name is not mentioned, but you are a party to one of the incidents addressed in the new section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_new_wrinkle_on_personal_attacks? that I just started at WP:ANI. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your closing of that discussion -- I'd prefer to just let it go to the archives in its own time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, but not strongly enough to dispute.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone re-hats, I'm not going to argue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Files Navarino Eleon.jpg and co

Hi SPhilbrick, When I set out to create the Navarino Icons, I asked a Greek friend to take a digital photograph of the product and send to me, and I enhanced it; I have no reason to doubt then that he did not take the photographs as directed. As it is now, can you help license the files accordingly as promotional images if that would pass for fair-use? —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine how they could possibly pass fair use. There's nothing stopping anyone from taking a picture of the products. In other words, they are replaceable, which is one of the criteria. (There might be an issue of the copyright status of the container design, but that's a separate issue.) However, while I am learning a lot about image licensing, I don't pretend to be an expert, so it is possible someone else will have different advice.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, many thanks. If you can look at the article—Navarino Icons—itself and help out, I would even be more grateful. My talk with the editor—User_talk:Eeekster#Navarino_Icons—who tagged it have not yielded response yet. Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited United African Apostolic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apostolic Faith Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Permission confirmation

Hi Sphilbrick, hope everything is well with you, I wanted to let you know that I have sent a email for "File:Ruff Sqwad.jpg" using the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I was hoping if you can please help me to process and fast track it, so that my email doesn't get lost. I'am forever grateful for your help – MarkMysoe (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: Sandra Navidi

Hi Sphilbrick. You are listed as the administrator who deleted the article that I wrote on Sandra Navidi. Am I permitted to create a new article on the same person, provided I remove that part of the content which violated G12? And if I do so, is there anything special I need to do (or clear with you first)? Or can I simply upload the new article? Can I do it immediately, or do I need to wait a specific number of days? Thank you. Whytestone (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

You can do it immediately, you don't need permission. Thanks for asking.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I uploaded the new page, but later noticed that the capitalization is incorrect. It should be Sandra Navidi but it came out as Sandra navidi. I tried to change it by adding {{DISPLAYTITLE:Sandra Navidi}} at the bottom of the page, but that did not work. Please advise how I can make this correction. Thank you Whytestone (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

The way a title change is made is to move the article to a new name. Because you are not yet able to see the move tab (you will with two more edits), I did it for you.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Whytestone (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Whytestone

Vietnamese towns G6 moves from August 2011

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for you work and sorry to bother you, but think this is worth asking. This notification comes rather belatedly, because even though you actioned a significant number of G6 "uncontroversial moves" for User:Kauffner from July-October 2011, unlike 3 other admins (Graeme Bartlett, Edgar181 and Malik Shabazz) the G6 "uncontroversial moves" you actioned weren't accompanied by edits such as an IP puppeting Miszabot to hide by archiving a contrary RM Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 or logged-in deletion of Talk page links to contrary RM notices before requesting G6s. So even though your User ID comes up frequently among the 600 "uncontroversial moves", they weren't ones where IP activity or Talk page deletions obscuring contrary RM results from a G6 admin were involved. Anyway, the reason for contacting you today is I just noticed a particularly questionable move:

(cur | prev) 10:03, 11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,957 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan: Drop Vietnamese diacritics as there is virtually no use in published English. See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau) (undo)) (undo)

I personally think that 4 days after a RM to move several Vietnamese towns at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 failed, the move of Phú Xuân, the historical capital of the Nguyễn Lords should never have been submitted for G6 as uncontroversial. Therefore I would like to request that Phú Xuân be restored because of historical significance and relatively common use of the full Vietnamese name in English histories of the period. Plus consistency with the modern place name Huê.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Guy Veloso

Dear,

I `ve created that page!!! :-) ...The page on Facebook about the Photographer Guy Veloso is my creation! Please see my name in the end of the page! "Created by Deborah Cabral (jounarlist) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Guy-Veloso/314985578594507?ref=ts&sk=info

Please, reload (ouer) wik page?

And, if you want, the Photographer could send you a e-mail (if necessery). The page (texts and photos) was autorizated by the artist. You Can ask him by his webpage: http://www.fotografiadocumental.com.br/site/?page_id=487

Thanks.

--189.82.87.226 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See Donating copyrighted materials. Yes, an email is needed, the instructions are at the link, please ask if they aren't clear.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

123 and 112

Could be additions by the same user, on the same article, with 2 names? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but I have no skills in the SPI area. I see people concluding that two editors are clearly the same, and I often don't see it. The regulars that hang out at wp:spi are better at that sort of thing.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've filled out the survey and look forward to testing this out.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read it all, but an interesting and exhausting discussion of the naming options.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS permission FYI

I noticed it on Federico Longo in particular, but it applies generally: Per WP:COPYVIO "until the donation process is complete the article should be replaced with the {{subst:copyvio|url=insert URL here}} tag". Since (as you presumably know) there are plenty of times when the permission isn't ever worked out satisfactorily for one reason or another. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, and I probably knew that. I think the permissions will be straightforward, (although promotional issues will remain), but I agree, best to leave the template until cleaned. I'm trying to dig out some of the CP, and I thought it would be better if this wasn't in the list, but I agree it should be.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well in this case it was already on the list. Anything that gets tagged by CorenSearchBot/MadmanBot/VWBot gets listed at SCV and so transcluded into CP, and checking for an OTRS tag is pretty quick all things considered. Anyways, cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Nivedita Tiwari 2012.jpg

You added {{PermissionOTRS}} here, but there is no valid licence template listed. Can you take a look at it? As it is now, it looks as if it should be deleted per WP:CSD#F3. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I also took up this matter on the uploader's talk page when the file information page was edited a few days ago. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been better at making sure the license on the image matches the email, but I didn't in this case. The email has the usual standard language, which I glanced at but I see that it clearly specifies an unacceptable language. Will address now.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, My apologies for the mistake in the license name. I read the guidelines but got confused with the noncommercial portion. I have corrected the license template and also the correct license template was emailed to the permissions email address. Sorry again guys and thanks. (Raasta123 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your note. I checked at OTRS, and do not see an updated email from you. I don't know whether there is a lag, I would have guessed it would be almost instantaneous.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply! The email with the permissions is actually coming from someone else and I thought she had sent the email update already. I will confirm with her to make sure it is sent (I'm assuming not since you don't have it) and then follow up with you. Sorry for all the issues. --(Raasta123 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Not a problem, just want to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised permission received and now acceptable.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Raasta123 (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Jobin RV's talk page.
Message added 04:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jobin^{What's up?} 04:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with assisting a user with COI on the Human Terrain System page

Hi Sphilbrick!

You kindly responded to my question at Teahouse about some section blanking on the Human Terrain System (HTS) page. After I wrote to the user, welcomed them, and explained why I had reverted their edits, they have written back explaining that they work for HTS, are planning - with others - to update the page, and would like to become 'owner' of the page. It seems to be all good faith, if just based on a misunderstanding of how wiki works (as you suggested, in fact). I feel that I am far too inexperienced as an editor to be able to offer the necessary guidance/explanations here, so I wondered if you might be able to step in?

With all best,

Lorelei (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi S. Phillbrick - sorry, back again! I see you responded immediately - thanks so much! However, the user had explained why they were making the edits (see their comments under SRich's warning about section blanking). They seem to think that they might be able to take over and become owner of the HTS page and so would need some explanation on this.

Thanks so much - and sorry for hassling you again (am watching and learning so won't have to ask if there's a next time!)

Lorelei (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I responded, I'm a little worried I came across heavy-handed, but I was typing fast. We'll see how it goes. As I said, many people request ownership of articles. It has NEVER been granted.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much again :) It didn't seem heavy-handed to me: HTS is no newbie to controversy and, in truth, the article about it had been more of a battle-site than an article for quite some time (and under a neutrality tag) before SRich and I put a load of work into getting it NPOV a couple of months ago. So I think it was important it was handled effectively (and fairly decisively too) so it didn't escalate. Many thanks, Lorelei (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Same as the message above, I think editors should be able to restore these G6 moves, as they were problematic. Âu Lạc is another example. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. The message above doesn't relate to G6.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, am I mistaken, (cur | prev) 10:03, 11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,957 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan: Drop Vietnamese diacritics as there is virtually no use in published English. See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau) (undo)) (undo).. is this not a result of a user putting in a G6 "uncontroversial move" request? It bears the hallmarks of 600 similar "uncontroversial" requests. Excuse me if I've used the incorrect terminology. Never having requested this kind of move I'm not clear on the full details. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I was confused because you said "Same as the message above". I still don't know what that means. So you are asking about a move I made over a year ago. I don't recall the details, but I see the move discssion at Talk:Ngo_Bao_Chau. That discussion was closed with a consensus to move. I think you are requesting that the pages be moved back. That isn't likely to happen without a Move discussion, one that overrides the earlier decision. Has that taken place, or are you planning to do so?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, yes I'm asking about a move made over a year ago:

18 July 2011 close RM for Vietnamese mathematician Talk:Ngo Bao Chau = RM succeeded moved

07 Aug 2011 close RM for Vietnamese towns Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 = RM failed, not moved

11 August 2011‎ Sphilbrick moved Vietnamese town Phú Xuân to Phu Xuan See Britannica, discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau

Why did the 11 August uncontroversial move request for a Vietnamese town refer to the 18 July mathematician rather than the 07 August Vietnamese town when the request was to move another Vietnamese town rather than move another mathematician? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. - that isn't likely to happen without a Move discussion, one that overrides the earlier decision. Has that taken place, or are you planning to do so? - your move overrides the earlier decision about Vietnamese towns, but yes the decision about Vietnamese towns has been verified, there are 3RMs at Talk:Cà Mau (i) 6 July 2010 (ii) 7 August 2011 (iii) 24 August 2012. These are the only 3 RMs there have ever been for Vietnamese towns, all 3 have the towns at Vietnamese names. So there shouldn't be "uncontroversial moves" citing a Vietnamese mathematician moving Vietnamese towns counter the results of RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue of diacritics has been contentious. I've read some of the issues, but haven't as far as I recall, contributed to the discussion. It is awkward that one move discussion closes with a consensus to move, and another closes with no consensus, but you are reading too much into it to assume that the rules might depend on whether the subject is a location or a person. Perhaps that is relevant (although I don't see why), but it is more likely that happenstance meant that the handful of editors who contributed to one discussion did so in a way that an admin felt there was a consensus to move, while the set of editors who showed up at the other one didn't reach such a consensus. I wasn't aware of both discussions until now. I made a move based upon a successful consensus. You have pointed out that a different discussion failed. This clearly means that the issue isn't simple, so no further moves, nor restores, should be done until another move discussion takes place. Ideally, someone will start an RFC, and bring in both of these discussions, and any other relevant ones, and maybe we can reach a better consensus.

(I added italics to your post, because your quote of me was quite confusing at first.)

You said my move overrode an earlier one. That's misleading. The editors contributing to the discussion did not bring up that discussion, so it wasn't considered. Which is unfortuante, as the result might have been different had people realized a different result had been reached in a similar circumstance.

I'm not quite sure what you are requesting. If you are requesting that some moves be undone, that isn't going to happen without a community discussion. If you want to point out that two discussions took place at similar times, with similar issues and reached different conclusions, consider it pointed out. However, that reinforces the need for a community wide discussion, it does not support the notion that the moves can simply be reversed. Or at least, that's how it appears to me. Perhaps a different admin would see it differently.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks again for your time.

Yes, definitely the issue of diacritics has been contentious (though I would say the contention re European names is over, it wasn't last year) which is why in my view 600 Vietnamese articles should not have ever been moved by db-move / G6 requests even if there had been RMs in favour, much less since there'd been RMs against.

You say The editors contributing to the discussion did not bring up that discussion, so it wasn't considered. I'm sorry I don't understand this sentence

"The editors contributing to the discussion" = The editors contributing to the discussion on Vietnamese town names at the Vietnamese town names RM which ended July 7?

If that's what "The editors contributing to the discussion" means (sorry I'm trying to work out which editors which discussion), well of course they didn't bring up Vietnamese town Phú Xuân, because they never knew about it, it was not taken to a second Vietnamese town RM after the Vietnamese town RM failed, the initiator of the failed RM ignored the result of the RM and brought it to uncontroversial moves instead. Or does "The editors contributing to the discussion" refer to something else? Sorry, not deliberately trying to be dense, the confusion probably arises from my own presentation above rather than your answer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, I saw a move request with a consensus to move. So I carried out one (or maybe more). In retrospect, there was a lot going on at the time, which was relevant to the request, but not known at the time. However, I'm seeing much of this now, a year later, for the first time. I'm still not sure I understand your request. If you think a move carried out a year ago should be reversed, because you now have evidence it wasn't quite as uncontroversial as it seemed at the time, that's not likely to happen. When we find that something is contentious, we slow down, and try to get it right, we don't simply reverse the decision and start over.

I have a lot of interests, and a lot of things on my plate. I handle some things that are complicated, and in other areas, I stick to the less contentious issues. If you want to talk about a contentious copyright issue, I'm all over it. But you've pointed out that the diacritics issue is quite complicated, so I'm going to leave it to those who know more about it. I helped with what I thought was a maintenance task when I thought there was a simple, clear conclusion. It is now clear that more issues need to be considered. If you came to me because the admin performing the move should be approached first, my answer is simple. If a new discussion results in a consensus to move back, there won't be any issue from me. I don't have a strong opinion about the issue, and simply was carrying out the results of an apparent consensus.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick, very helpful, then since you have no objection I think then the next step would be submit a selection of several of "your" (i.e. Kauffner via G6 process) moves to a new RM and see if the conclusions are the same as at Talk:Hồ Quý Ly, Talk:Ngô Sĩ Liên, and the 3 RMs 2010 2011 2012 at Talk:Cà Mau. It's unfortunate that with close to 700-800 geography articles having been unilaterally moved and preemptively locked against reversion by use of redirect-edits, to go the honest route via WP:RM to revert all 700-800 moves back to agreement with the original Vietnam city name RM results will take till 2016 to undo one User's undiscussed moves. But anyway that is the way the system works. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue has already been to ANI. How many places does it get forum shopped to? Kauffner (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, this particular issue has not been to ANI. (i) The ANI report above was 2 days prior to discovery of logged out activity hiding contrary RM results before requesting "uncontroversial" dbmoves against RM results. (ii) Karl B's note at ANI makes no mention of the 600x G6 moves where admins were proxied, he is referring only to the 1000x undiscussed moves and redirect-edit-locks done under Kauffner's own name. It's not clear from the note at ANI that KarlB had, at the time, any clue about Kauffner's use of dbmove templates and proxied admins. I have to be honest neither did I, I originally looked at the edit histories a couple of months ago and thought "who is this guy Sphilbrick who keeps moving Vietnam articles?!" ...for a rank-and-file editor who has never requested a dbmove, it's impossible to tell an admin being proxied from a first-hand user. Maybe a template change to record the name of the requesting user along with the admin is something that could be considered in future? But anyway, that's not my problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've seen Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese), that looks like the right venue. FYI, I'm going to have limited, close to zero Wikipedia time between now and Thursday at the earliest.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

[1] Eau (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sounded like it reached a satisfactory resolution, although took a rocky and circuitous route to get there.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bayesian

I see that you are a statistician; right? At the Talk: Tenedos page there is a lot of discussion on how to use or understand Google searches on the names Tenedos and Bozcaada. Could you possibly visit the page (there is a RfC) and evaluate or contrıbute to conflicting views about how to read the relevant Google searches? P.S. I am also aware that you are an Admin. If my request can be seen as canvassing please ignore my message. (Frankly I do not understand why asking people -without picking them among a group of users known to edit in this or that certain way- could be considered canvassing, anyhow.) All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will check it out. I am an actuary, which means I have some statistical training, but not formally a statistician. (Some editors think the no canvassing policy means no contacting anyone, at any time. It doesn't mean that, but I understanding why some are hypersensitive.)--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken only a brief look, but will not be able to do it justice at the moment. I have an intense two day training seminar coming up, and need to prepare. I didn't see a straight-forward statistical issue. I think the argument that the Google Books result may be skewed toward historical, rather than contemporary results is intriguing, but would like to look at it closer. Sorry, I cannot do it justice at the moment.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope everything goes well with the seminar. All the best...--E4024 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Help: OTRS Permission confirmation

Greetings Sphilbrick, hope everything is still well with you, I want to let you know that I have sent a email for four images ("File:Kwasi Danquah III (performing).jpg", "File:Kwasi Danquah III (autographs).jpg", File:Kwasi Danquah III..jpg, File:Kwasi Danquah III.jpg) using the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. I was urgently hoping if you can please help me to process and fast track the images with OTRS ticket numbers, so that my email will not be lost with others. Once again Sphilbrick, I'am forever grateful for all that you have done for me – MarkMysoe (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've done this before, but do not think it is a good habit. OTRS was largely caught up, but I see that it is a bit backlogged again. I'm unable to do anything at OTRS until Thursday, due to real life backlogs. If it hasn't been handled by then, poke me again and I'll address it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'am really so sorry Sphilbrick, I know it looks like it is becoming a habit. The reason why I needed it rushed was because I'am about to travel in 8 hours for long distances until 25 September 2012 I will be away from a computer and internet, and that was why I was hoping you can fast track the four images for me ("File:Kwasi Danquah III (performing).jpg", "File:Kwasi Danquah III (autographs).jpg", File:Kwasi Danquah III..jpg, File:Kwasi Danquah III.jpg) with the Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries that I have used in the email sent. I would have liked to have known before I started my long travels that the four images had received their OTRS ticket numbers. I want to thank you again for your past help, I really do appreciate everything you have done for me, I would be forever grateful if you could help this once again due to my travels. Once again Sphilbrick, I'am forever grateful for all that you have done for me – MarkMysoe (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Previously deleted article : "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography"

Hi,

Last week I created the page "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography". It was deleted for copyright infringement because of its similarities to http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2126571. I am the research assistant for the professor who posted that SSRN document. He had asked me to turn the document into a wikipedia page for public review/alteration. I informed him about your requirements to donate a document/information and he has made the appropriate changes to his SSRN article by adding the phrase "The text of this page and the attached downloadable document are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

Please advise regarding how to create the original wikipedia page in question - "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: A Bibliography".

Thank you,

Keaupuni (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm in all day meetings. Will try to look at tomorrow.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it, and added a note to the talk page. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!Keaupuni (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:WardrobeTrendsFashion-Screenshot.jpg

Does the licence apply to the images or only to the text? I suspect that the website only holds the copyright to the text.

For example, this website sources the largest image to "rowme.com" with a link to http://www.romwe.com/multi-point-spike-headband-p-35889.html^{[dead link]}. This website has a link to the same page at "rowme.com". Google suggests that the image appears on the same page at rowme.com. Nothing useful in the EXIF.

The second image on the row with lots of images also appears here. WardrobeTrendsFashion has a cropped version and the one on the forum shows a lot more. Reading other posts in the forum thread, I get the impression that the image originally comes from some Dolce & Gabbana catalogue or publication. Nothing useful in the EXIF of this high-resolution copy.

The Facebook photos are obviously not owned by the WardrobeTrendsFashion website, but they could maybe be argued to be de minimis. However, the other images look more troubling to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The permission clearly states the image.

The permission is provided by the managing director and founder of the site. I recently got into a long discussion with someone trying to license an image where I questioned some elements of the image. They eventually gave up. However, that was an amateur, this appears to be a professional, and I assume (maybe incorrectly) that they know whether they can license a shot of their own publication.) Do you think we need evidence of permission on all the underlying elements?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)