User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 30

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 25

←

Archive 28

→

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Francophonie&Androphilie's talk page.
Message added 14:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Philipmj24

If you have the time, could you do me the favor of reviewing the articles involved and taking any necessary steps? I have no preference and trust your judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking now.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Some completed, but dinner calls.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored all the articles except for 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Schedule. I do not know enough about the subject matter to have a strong opinion on whether a article this specific (an individual event) is warranted, as opposed to an overall article on the entire Championship. I'm aware that there is raging controversy over a similar issue regarding MMA, so we must take care to make consistent evaluations. I've noted at each talk page that my restoration should not be construed as an opinion that the article should survive an AfD, I took the action because there was sufficient concern that the unilateral mass deletion was premature, so I'm restoring to the prior situation, (except for the schedule article which I haven't seen anyone argue for restoration). At this point, if anyone feels this type of article does not belong in Wikipedia, they can nominate individually or as a group and we can debate the merits. I would not object if anyone proposes deletion, to see what happens, but in view of the opinion of Dirtlawyer1 at the ANI thread, I'm not inclined to propose deletion.

I do feel it could have been handled better, and I'll remind admins that it is useful to avoid any edits other than truly routine, when coming up against a work situation preventing further involvement (emergency situations excepted) and I'll remind editors, that when an action is brought to ANI, please allow some time for busy people to investigate and reach conclusions. With rare exceptions, taking a few hours to investigate in order to take the right action isn't unreasonable, even if you feel that action affecting you was unreasonable.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

...and don't forget that one's first line of action is to approach the other party directly. So much BS and misunderstanding can be avoided that way :-) Cheers for your well-considered comments (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Occasionally, I'll see an excuse like I didn't think they would respond, or I know them and they wouldn't deal with it However, while it may feel like process for process's sake, it isn't hard, it will sometimes achieve a surprising result, and if it fails, then the record will show you tried, which is worth something.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The pages 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Women's 800 metre freestyle and 2012 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 100 metre butterfly were missed. I wholly agree that the other party should be directly contacted first. However, when your efforts are ignored (because they were busy, but not busy enough to delete dozen of pages), no other option is available. Philipmj24 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at your I wholly agree that the other party should be directly contacted first. I don't see any indication that you tried to contact BWilkins. Did I miss it, or did I misunderstand you?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you SPhilbrick. I knew you could objectively deal with this aspect and appreciate you taking the time. Now that it looks to be done, I'm guessing we just let the non-admin deal with the situation using the standard editorial process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

2010 Romania military plane crash

I AFD this article last week. It has since been learned this article went through AFD[1] before and was deleted. So I CSD it under G4 now. Can you speedy delete it?...William 12:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted a few minutes ago by JamesBWatson--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see that. Sorry to have bothered you. Happy Holidays....William 13:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a bother, Happy Holidays right back at you.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Himmanshoo_Malhotra.jpg

Hi, I was wondering if I could request your help in resolving permissions for a file? I had worked with you on another permission for an image so thought I'd reach out to you again. I had loaded the file and then the permissions for that file were sent to OTRS via someone else (owner of the picture). An OTRS ticket was created but the note says that the permission were not sufficient. I had thought this was because I had tagged the wrong license on the file page which I then updated. Would you be able to tell me what is missing in the permissions email that was sent to OTRS so that I can get it corrected? The owner said that they emailed the template to the OTRS system so I don't know if they deleted something by accident. Thanks -Raasta123 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of something, but will look at it in a few minutes.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There are several questions, which were emailed to the person requesting the permission.

I'm not at liberty to disclose the contents to another party, but I will note that the license on the image

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 India license

is NOT the license specified in the email, and that is one of the problems.

It may be as simple as an error in copying, but must be resolved.

There is no rush. While images with concern templates sometimes are deleted if not resolved in 7 days, when there is a notice of an email registered at OTRS, most admins will give a little more time for resolution.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 01:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey thank you very much. I had told the person to make the correction to the license name in the email to OTRS because I had made the same mistake with another photo. I will message them to send the update and to follow up on the questions that were sent or else I'll delete the photo myself - no point in wasting people's time if they are not providing responses. Thanks for the info! -Raasta123 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't have to delete it, because it is a nice photo. My guess is that it was a simple mistake, remedied by selecting the right license. There are a couple other issues, but easily resolved.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sorry I skipped right over your message above. I had him email the corrected license (at least I hope so) so hopefully we can get the other stuff remedied as well. Raasta123 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to check tomorrow, don't hesitate to ping me if you don't hear soon, it's a busy time.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Done

You rock! Thanks! :-D -Raasta123 (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

José Ricardo Martínez Cobo

Please restore this article which you speedy-deleted. While I did take a significant amount of data from the website you pointed to, this was not the only source, nor did I "copy" the webpage in full. Moreover, it was my own translation into English, and while I did intend to include the Spanish language site in references, it was by no means my only source of information. Crock81 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read Close paraphrasing. It is not sufficient to merely change some of the words...the result can still constitute a copyright violation.

For example, I chose one sentence from the latest version of the article, and one from the translated source. I've identified in bold the exact matches. This is not a close call. If even a quarter of the words matched, we might be in a close call.

In Wikipedia:

In 1954 he was elected Ambassador to United Kingdom. The following year Guevara asked Martinez-Cobo to accept the nomination for Vice-President of the Republic in pairing with him to capture pro Velasco votes, but Camilo Ponce objected fearing that the entente would take away the Velasco's support.

From source:

In 1954 he was elected Ambassador in Britain. The following year Guevara asked... to accept the nomination for Vice President of the Republic in pairing with him to capture velasquismo but Camilo Ponce objected fearing that the entente take away the favor of Velasco

--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing says nothing about translations. How do you compare Spanish and English articles?! Crock81 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I opened it in Chrome, which did a translation for me. Note that the wording you used almost exactly matches it. Maybe you used a different translator, or as you may well be more language proficient than I am, perhaps you translated it yourself. You might want to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative_works which addresses translations. A close paraphrase of a translation is not an exception to copyright.

Copyright is a tricky area, and while I certainly don't know everything, I know where to look, so let me know if you have further questions.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have you on my watchlist, but the notice brings it to my attention faster of course.

In any case, the translation is called "A derivative work" in terms of copyright; pardon my ignorance. So, technically you are right in that I required a permission from the Ecuadorian website to translate their text.

However, you never gave me the opportunity to ask them for the permission, never mind that it took this long for me to realise I did wrong! I think if you had given me a bit of time, that perhaps the website owner may have provided a permission to use translation. I think you should have given me the benefit of the doubt and not speedy deleted the article until I had established a refused permission. I will contact them tomorrow since I'm exhausted now. Assuming they will provide a permission to use a translation for Wikipedia, is there a way to recover the deleted article? I spent a better part of two hours on that. Crock81 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for understanding that a translation is considered a derivative work. However, regarding your concern about the timing, it is a common concern. I've deleted many dozens of articles where the editor wanted time to clean it up. Unfortunately, what most editors do not understand, is that a copyvio in the history is technically as wrong as one that is in the current article. I spent a couple hours yesterday because several editors decided to use one article as a template to create some similar articles. By the time I saw them, the material had been removed, but the history still contained the copyvio, and I had to delete the prior versions. See the history of Stony Valley Railroad Grade to see that 10 early versions had to be removed. See the advice I gave to the editor User_talk:Tnoll82 which also applies to you. It isn't even good practice to start with someone else's material and modify it, but if you do, please do it offline, so the copyright problems are not in the history.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly removed from an article, now restored.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mason Henry Gang, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gilroy, Santa Cruz County and Clear Creek (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) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Logo used by AIG in 2012.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -happy 5214 07:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to create an SVG version, that seems like a suitable replacement. I don't think it is appropriate to replace it with a PNG taken from someone else's website, even if that is deemed permissible.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I posed a question here--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Deaf School at The Garage, London - January 2011.jpg

Hi, Sphilbrick. Has there been any progress with the file File:Deaf School at The Garage, London - January 2011.jpg which I brought up here? I'm getting some flack from the uploader as it appears there has been no follow up. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check with Pigsonthewing. I'm not at liberty to go into more detail, but it has dropped off my radar.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

Thanks for the extra info. Being honest it's such a complex thing (as I am from the UK our rules are different anyway) I'll just stick to pictures I've taken myself. I was thinking of getting photos of old railway stations but it's very hard to know if I can use them Cls14 (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in old railroad stations you should check out the work of Alanyoung2154, for example, User:Alanyoung2154/sandbox.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!

Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you!

Pomfret, Connecticut

There's a SPA editor called Ford Fay. First he was putting[2] himself in as a notable person, when in fact he is or was a hot dog vendor[3]. He's stopped that but now he keeps putting someone else in the notable person's section who fails WP:GNG the notability standards for town articles. There are one[4] or two[5] IP sockpuppets involved also. I've referred him or his socks to GNG, WP:COI, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:OWN to name a few but he either isn't reading them or he is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT....William 18:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've weighed in and will watch, although I will be away from my computer for the CT-ND game shortly.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That seemed too easy. I have it on my watchlist, but my watchlist is too long, so don't hesitate to ping me if it starts again and I miss it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, Wikipedia has become like the Federal government, there are to many rules and rules that challenge the rules. If one has nothing better to do in life they may become a contributor, but in my case I have a life other than Wikipedia. I will no longer be a humble contributor to the Pomfret CT site and will leave that to WilliamJE of Florida who I am sure will keep our site up to date, i.e. our current first selectman, our current population, etc. etc. Go Uconn and CoasttoCoastam. Ford Fay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Fay (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request - University of Aleppo

Greetings Sphilbrick, University of Aleppo was recently deleted for "copyright violation". As one of the early contributors to this page, I'd like to kindly request undeleting the page on the basis that the copyright violation claim is invalid, and here's why:

First, the allegedly infringed webpage [6] shares some content with the deleted WP page, mainly the History and the Faculties sections. The NASC website has obviously either copied that text from the WP article or from another site that did so. I can confidently say so because the History section seems to me coming from my own words that I put in the page when I started it - I believe in 2005 or 2006.
Second, the first few lines of "History" are, almost surely, my own words since 2005 (it's been 7-8 years, and I can't see the page history now). The subsequent lines came later by other contributors. At least, the line "During 2008, the University of Aleppo marked its golden jubilee" must have been added in 2008 or later. I guess you can check the page history to verify. I think this evolution of the WP page is a clear evidence that the WP article was not copied from the NASC site, but the other way around. NASC page seems to be directly copied from an evolved revision of the WP page.
Third, the WP article contents, particularly the questionable parts, go back to 2005 as I mentioned. But the NASC.IN domain is as new as 2009 [7]. Their article must be even newer.
Fourth, the other similar section is the "Faculties". I honestly fail to see how this could be a violation of copyright. Even if this list came from another source, it is a factual list. There's no room for rephrasing here. It's like a list of songs in a musical album.

Please reconsider the deletion of the page, and please let me know you need more information or more evidence. Best regards, Nawwar (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I will look into it immediately. I will just add a general comment, that I review dozens of potential copyright issues each week, many of which are Universities, and they are almost always violations. That said, almost always is not always. We are supposed to check carefully to see what came first, but on occasions, after checking to make sure the wording is the same, and checking to make sure the purported source is not properly licensed, I occasionally forget to check the history to see if it is a reverse copyvio. I do catch some, but I may have missed this one. I will check, and if so, it can be easily fixed.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was embarrassing, if only because I pride myself on checking the history, and have pointed out the possibility of a backwards copy on several occasions. But I missed this one. I added a template to the talk page, which should help avoid this in the future.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response and resolution. I understand the volume of pages you have to deal with everyday and I highly appreciate the amount of effort you admins spend to do your job. Also thanks for the Barnstar :) Nawwar (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

When I looked at the page, I did not see any restoration of the information. It was obviously off the article for sometime for Legal Insurrection to get wind of it and write about it. Im surprised it took a blog post to get the information reverted on someone who is not obscure by any sense of the term. Why so touchy that I pointed it out and why the need to delete my comment and that of the other person who noted the blog post? Better to simply respond by pointing out it is reversed.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If I seem touchy it is because you appear like a bull in a China shop.

You posted to Jimbo's page at 21:46

That is over five hours after I posted a link to the Jacobson article on the Warren Talk page at 16:18. If you had looked at the Warren talk page, the obvious thing to do when there are allegations, you would have seen that the issue was already under discussion.

I explained that you had missed the material at 22:57

You posted to Jimbo's page a half hour later, and didn't acknowledge that I had explained what was happening on the talk page. You apparently ignored my statement that the Jacobson article was linked to the Warren talk page, and at 23:43, decided to post to the Warren Talk page, adding a link that was already there, and a link I had already told you was there.

Of course the material was off the article for some time. That's what prompted Jacobson to write the blog post. But I had read the blog post, long before you knew about it, and had already taken the logical steps of posting the information at the Warren Talk page, and started a discussion about whether to and how to restore the information.

If you had bothered to read the talk page you would have seen it, but no, you just post blather about what should be done, when many editors have been discussing it for hours.

I did not delete your comment. You aren't a newbie, you have over 12,000 edits. Surely you've seen a hatted discussion before. I hatted it because new editors will be visiting as a result of the Jacobson article, and I didn't want them misled by your comments, and wondering why the Jacobson article has been linked a second and third time.

Now do you see why I am touchy about it?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing an RfC I suggested?

My suggestion didn't pick up any steam, so I'm assuming there won't be an RfC along those lines. Also, I won't be closing any related RfCs. But on your question of whether that was the way to proceed, I think context is everything. If I suggested to fellow coordinators at WP:Milhist, "Hey, I want to be co-lead, unless there are any objections", that would be inappropriate, because in a relatively tight group, there's always a chance that people will object but won't speak up. We don't seem to have that problem at WT:RFA ... much the opposite :) But this was a one-time thing ... I don't spend much time on RFA stuff these days. (However, since Jimmy's about to step in, I have made a suggestion ... please see WT:RFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears I misunderstood. I thought you were planning to start an RfC, and proposed yourself as a closer. Based on your post here, it sounds like you were hoping someone else would craft the RfC, and you volunteered to be a closer. Very different; my apologies if I misunderstood. However, if anyone else read it the same way I did, perhaps there was no traction because others thought you were announcing plans to write an RfC, and they were waiting to see it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The angle I was going for was: if we can get a few people who are trusted by just about everybody to be process-oriented and not to force their own solution, then we might be able to pull in all the stake-holders and vote on an RfC and be content with the results ... I was being a little pushy, but only because the clock is running. That didn't work. If I had one wish for past RfA discussions (my wish for future RfA discussions is not to have them :), it would have been to break them into sections, and let everyone discuss and vote however they want ... in their own section. The problem is that each position has its adherents ... and the adherents get angry when people talk about anything else as if it might be a solution, so everyone is trying to talk over everyone, and the kind of discussion that produces several coherent, attractive plans doesn't happen. But ... I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we find out what Jimbo is going to be doing about it this month, and I asked on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the request. I have some of my own thoughts, but I'm overbooked, and pushing my own thoughts may be exactly what you were trying to avoid. If Jimbo does buy into your concept, I may try to write up my solution, which, curiously, bears a strong relationship to your idea on how to structure the RfC. (In short, I would ask for multiple volunteers, each to write up a summary of one aspect of the candidate, assemble the comments into a report, then allow the community to !vote up or down based upon the report. I think it is incredibly inefficient that we effectively expect all !voters to analyze all contributions. We ought to find a way to divide up the review.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's just the thing ... some of us are aware how much of a clusterfrak it will be if everyone is pushing their own solutions, so we hold off ... others feel no compunctions. It's a tough problem ... the people who should be pushing, don't. That's why I'd prefer an RfC where we've established a ground rule that everyone can be as loud and as persuasive as they want to be ... when speaking with others who share their general approach. I hope I can get some folks to see the wisdom in that, if wisdom there is. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

One more thing if you have time ... please see WT:RFA#Rfacom. A bunch of recent comments pushed me in this direction ... including yours above, where you noted that the current system is very inefficient. Is Rfacom at all in line with what you're looking for? - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I like many aspects of it. It isn't exactly what I was thinking of, but it shares some of the positive aspects. I'll try to say more later, but I have some real-life constraints at the moment.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A friendly request for your diplomatic skills.

Today I nominated for CSD an article on Nicole wright. The CSD went through and now the article's creator is leaving messages on my user and talk pages. They weren't abusive(~~Darn. I can't claim to have had my user page vandalized which means I could put up another userbox up.~~) or anything but the editor could use some educating on what goes on around here including WP:COI. I appreciate your help....William 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Update The editor referenced above posted to my talk or user page for a third time. Another editor unrelated to the first one as well as I know blanked[8] my talk page. That user has been warned, so action needed from you but I can put up that user box now!...William 19:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing a response, even now.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've responded, a few times, and asked Tom to respond to me for anything in the future.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My maternal grandfather(He passed away 35 years ago this Friday) did have that saying "The complaint department is on the roof." He also did a great Charles Laughton impersonation, alas Papa was usually drunk at the time. Cheers!...William 20:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Downloaded files

Re the message you left on my talk back page these images have been downloaded to Wikimedia Commons under the following file names: Kelvin Valley railway 1 Kelvin Valley railway 2 Kelvin Valley railway 3 Kelvin Valley railway 4

Alanyoung2154 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Permissions have been processed. Thanks.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Undeletion request - dawood college of engineering and technology

Greetings Sphilbrick, [[Dawood college on engineering and == Undeletion request - dawood college of engineering and technology

Greetings Sphilbrick, [[Dawood college of engineering and technology was recently deleted for "copyright violation". As one of the early contributors to this page, I'd like to kindly request undeleting the page on the basis that the copyright violation claim is invalid, and here's why:

First, the allegedly infringed webpage [9] shares some content with the deleted WP page, mainly the History and the Faculties sections. The NASC website has obviously either copied that text from the WP article or from another site that did so. I can confidently say so because the History section seems to me coming from my own words that I put in the page when I started it - I believe in 2008 or 2009.
Second, the first few lines of "History" are, almost surely, my own words since 2008 (it's been 4-5 years, and I can't see the page history now). The subsequent lines came later by other contributors. At least, the line "During 2008, the University of Aleppo marked its golden jubilee" must have been added in 2010 or later. I guess you can check the page history to verify. I think this evolution of the WP page is a clear evidence that the WP article was not copied from the NASC site, but the other way around. NASC page seems to be directly copied from an evolved revision of the WP page.
Third, the WP article contents, particularly the questionable parts, go back to 2008 as I mentioned. But the NASC.IN domain is as new as 2009 [10]. Their article must be even newer.
Fourth, the other similar section is the "Faculties". I honestly fail to see how this could be a violation of copyright. Even if this list came from another source, it is a factual list. There's no room for rephrasing here. It's like a list of songs in a musical album.

Please reconsider the deletion of the page, and please let me know you need more information or more evidence. Best regards,

Thank you very much for the quick response and resolution. I understand the volume of pages you have to deal with everyday and I highly appreciate the amount of effort you admins spend to do your job. Also thanks for the Barnstar :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.221.33 (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Undeletion request - dawood college of engineering and technology

Greetings Sphilbrick, [[Dawood college on engineering and == Undeletion request - dawood college of engineering and technology

Greetings Sphilbrick, [[Dawood college of engineering and technology was recently deleted for "copyright violation". As one of the early contributors to this page, I'd like to kindly request undeleting the page on the basis that the copyright violation claim is invalid, and here's why:

First, the allegedly infringed webpage [11] shares some content with the deleted WP page, mainly the History and the Faculties sections. The NASC website has obviously either copied that text from the WP article or from another site that did so. I can confidently say so because the History section seems to me coming from my own words that I put in the page when I started it - I believe in 2008 or 2009.
Second, the first few lines of "History" are, almost surely, my own words since 2008 (it's been 4-5 years, and I can't see the page history now). The subsequent lines came later by other contributors. At least, the line "During 2008, the University of Aleppo marked its golden jubilee" must have been added in 2010 or later. I guess you can check the page history to verify. I think this evolution of the WP page is a clear evidence that the WP article was not copied from the NASC site, but the other way around. NASC page seems to be directly copied from an evolved revision of the WP page.
Third, the WP article contents, particularly the questionable parts, go back to 2008 as I mentioned. But the NASC.IN domain is as new as 2009 [12]. Their article must be even newer.
Fourth, the other similar section is the "Faculties". I honestly fail to see how this could be a violation of copyright. Even if this list came from another source, it is a factual list. There's no room for rephrasing here. It's like a list of songs in a musical album.

Please reconsider the deletion of the page, and please let me know you need more information or more evidence. Best regards,

I'm not fully following what is going on here. The text appears to be a copy of a request for another page, except with another article name replaced. I have been out of town and away from access for a couple days. It looks like the article was created today, perhaps it was deleted, and recreated. Please let me know if any action is still needed, I am operating under the assumption that nothing further is need from me.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)