Misplaced Pages

Deletion of page history with copyvio

Hi, you deleted a restored article while I was working on it; see Special:Undelete/Life_Goes_On_(2009_film). As I understand WP:COPYVIO, there is no need to delete page history that was illegal; it is sufficent to replace it with legal text. Have I misunderstood the rules? Would you have left it if I had posted {{Under construction}} on the restored page, replacing the speedy-deletion request, before I started detailed editing?

Now that the page is satisfactory, may I restore the page history? It would be appropriate to record the original contributor for the cast list. RSVP here. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that is acceptable, although this is a large place, and it is conceivable someone else thinks so. In general, material in violation of copyright is not acceptable, not in article space, and not in user space. There may have been a time when it was standard to userfy such an article, on the assumption that it would be quickly fixed, but that is no longer the acceptable practice. In fact, even when material subject to copyright have been completely eliminated, it may remain in the article history, and we are increasingly using revdel to remove prior versions. Given this, it no longer makes sense to userfy material that has been deleted due to copyright issues.

The under construction tag would not have helped. That tag would be an alter if some references were malformed, or tables were being designed, as a signal to a reviewer that some editing issues are likely to be fixed soon (ideally minutes or hours, but not days).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was working within minutes, not days. – Fayenatic London

I was puzzled by your statement As I understand WP:COPYVIO, there is no need to delete page history that was illegal; it is sufficient to replace it with legal text.. I think that is coming from This will give interested contributors a week to verify permission for the text or propose a rewrite. If so, the time allowance is for situation where there appears to be a problem, but there is some question. Note that it follows If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply.... In my opinion, the problem in Life Goes On (2009 film) was unambiguous, so it qualified for speedy deletion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring not to that passage, but to the following:

• If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. This does not imply any need for revdel.
• If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. Your interpretation seems to be that even if an editor is able to re-write the page from scratch, the page history to date must be deleted.

If you are confident of your interpretation, please revise the page WP:COPYVIO accordingly, or at least propose it on the talk page. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I may not be following. The first of the two points covers a situation where an article was acceptable at some time, but someone has added copyvio material in a later version. If one can remove the material, it can be done, or it not, one can revert to an earlier version. That does not apply to Life Goes On (2009 film), as the problem existed in all versions.

So the second condition applies, If there is no such older version...'. In that case, the page will normally need to be deleted. Which I did. The only thing missing is the more current procedure of revdeling if a revert or edit of copyvio material is used. I will make that suggestion. However, I'm not yet convinced we are on the same page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. In case my points are worth explaining another way:

• In the first bullet above, the proc allows reversion to a previous good version, and does not mention any need to revdel the COPYVIO versions.
• In the second one, the proc currently allows an alternative option of a full rewrite, again implying that (provided that is done) then the copyvio versions could then remain in history. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow up clarification. I don't know whether you had a chance to follow my conversation with MRG, but it was enlightening to me, as it cleared up a misconception I had. I knew it was legally problematic to have copyvios visible, but I thought it was also problematic to haven them even in history. That turns out not to be the case (caveat, WP:IANAL, and I am not qualified to give legal advice) and we revdel copyvios in history because it helps prevent the possibility of some editor mistakenly reverting to a copyvio. This is not a major concern if the article is in decent shape, but has a snippet of copyvio material somewhere in the history, but it is more of a potential problem if the removal of copyvio material takes a large article down to a stub - some overzealous editor might see a good-looking version in history and mistakenly think that the "good material" removal was vandalism. Better to revdel and remove the possibility.

Revdel is a relatively recent tool, and the Copyvio policy page was written long before it existed. Yes, when the tool came into being, we should have identified all places that should mention it, but there's a lot of things we should do. Now that I have a better understanding of the rationale and history, I'll propose some new wording.

On the second point, I see your point, and agree the current wording needs some tweaking. I'll try to address that as well. I do have too many irons in the fire, and I see several hundred unprocessed OTRS requests, so I won't promise the wording change will happen right away, but I'll try to get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've looked up your conversation now, thanks. It looks as if it would be permissible to restore the deleted history of Life Goes On (2009 film) after all. IMHO this would be desirable as user:AtreyaRC (talk) currently has no visible contributions. I'd like to send them an email to say their article has been rescued, to encourage them to contribute again, but it would be more encouraging if their past contributions were still traceable. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have now done that. – Fayenatic London 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nicely done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll unwatch your page now, and won't remind you about the copyvio process, but leave it in your hands. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished that, but I do have it on my to-do list, so I will get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Image search issue

hi Sphilbrick - I replied to you on my user talk page. Being new at this, I'm not sure of the protocol for letting people know. I also added some new info to the Image search topic at the Help desk. Check it out if you can. Best... 3dimen (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Image protocol question

You must have asked the wrong user, since I'm not an image expert. If I understand rightly, NFCR is for situations when nonfree content is being used or considered, and someone wants an opinion about whether that use be fair; it doesn't look like a deletion page, although of course deletion may result from a discussion that concludes that a use is unfair. FFD is for all types of files that need to be deleted; if you have a non-copyright reason for deleting an image, it almost certainly will need to go to FFD, because the non-copyright reasons for speedy deletion of images are rather few. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you aren't an expert, but you are fooling me:) Thanks, that is helpful. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's correct: WP:NFCR is used if you believe that an image fails the WP:NFCC policy, whereas WP:FFD is used if an image should be deleted for any reason. If an image fails WP:NFCC, it should often be deleted, so the two discussion boards partially overlap. WP:NFCR tends to be used mostly for images which pass WP:NFCC in some articles but fail it in some other articles (and thus can't be deleted), but the choice of discussion board also depends on the nominator. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was worried that there might be some definitive distinction, but in the case of these images, they might well end up needing deletion, so I think they are in the right place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

Talkback 3dimen

Orphaned non-free media (File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:NCAA Banner 1982.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting permission to print a photo

Hello Sphilbrick—

I apologize if this isn't the most efficient way to reach you, but I was having trouble finding an alternative. I work for the Appraisal Institute, an Illinois Not-for-Profit. We educate current and aspiring appraisers in the methods, techniques, standards, and ethics of real estate appraisal. Among the variety of materials we publish is the Appraisal Journal, a quarterly peer-reviewed journal focusing on particular property types and their appraisal challenges. For the Fall 2012 issue, we are running a feature on accessory dwelling units, and I found a photo of the Simsbury Historical Society carriage house that would be an excellent example to show our readers.

The Appraisal Journal has a circulation of nearly 20,000 appraisers and potential appraisers across the United States. Your photo will appear on the cover of the Fall 2012 issue exactly as it does in the original (except for resizing). I see that the photo is free to be licensed under the Creative Commons license, but I would be happy to give you specific photo credit, if you could let me know what language to include in the credit. I will also send you a PDF of the cover once it is complete and a printed copy of the Appraisal Journal if you would like.

Please send me an e-mail at

<redact>

to finalize any details or if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.208.196.2 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Yes, you can use it, although you don't need my permission. The most common route for permission requests is through OTRS (don't worry, if you don't know what that is). It is common enough that there is a canned answer, which I will reproduce below.

In principle all Misplaced Pages text is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and can be used free of charge for any purpose. A specific permission for use is not necessary, as long as the license conditions are observed. Some text is also available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Images are identified as being subject to any of several licenses. Therefore it is advisable to check the image information page for the source and/or licensing information. Clicking on the image will lead you to the image information page. Most images are usually free to use as long as you give the proper credits and follow the terms of the license indicated on the image description page.

For more information please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Copyrights and https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia

If the licensing conditions of one image do not suit you, it may be possible to contact the author of that image for alternate conditions. See in the description page if the author's name is present.

Please note: Neither the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the authors of articles on Wikimedia sites, nor the volunteers answering on this channel provide legal advice. It is your responsibility, if you intend to reuse content from Wikimedia sites, to determine how the licenses of the content that we host apply to your intended uses.

I have couple meetings coming up shortly, but I will respond to the email address later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Redact what?

The comment he objected to was an offhand slang term for dying, "kicked it", which he claims indicates a personal bias towards Oxford. (For the record I have a personal bias against aristocracy in general, but no more so for Oxford than for any other member of that blood-sucking class of useless twits.) The blasphemous expletive, which I used to indicate the ridiculousness of his accusation, is irrelevant to the issue. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Kicked it" was rude, but I'd never ask anyone to redact that. Any editor who can't deal with that isn't going to make it here. OTOH, Jesus fucking Christ" did nothing to advance the argument,and gives the editor a thin reed to argue that conduct is an issue. You could remove that reed easily.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried my point may not be clear, so I'll try again. If I thought the expression were a violation of policy, I would have redacted it myself. I don't think it is a violation of policy, but it clearly offended an editor. The editor in question is making a number of ridiculous arguments, and it is quite fair to characterize the arguments thusly. However, I fear that a general disdain for the editors arguments is manifesting itself as a disdain for the editor. That line should not be crossed. It was crossed with the labeling of the section. I think carving off the section was a brilliant idea; while the choice of section name was less brilliant. I would find it easier to respond to the editor if I could say" all your arguments are ridiculous, knock it off" but you muddy the waters. I changed the section name, but I won't redact the expletive. I hoped you would.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I really fail to see how "kicked it" could be construed as an insult, or even rude, except to someone who considers Oxford an object of religious devotion. It's consistent with a conversational style. As to the other, I'll change it to "H". Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere

Thank you very much again, User SPhilbrick. I really appreciate your kind advice concerning Tom Reedy, and I have already followed it. Please have a look on my recent editings on the Talk page of "Edward de Vere" and on WP:ANI. Best wishes, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. I'm well aware that people can hold strong opinions, and that can spiral, especially if strong language is used. I appreciate that two of the involved parties have both agreed to cut back some of the stronger language. I don;t pretend for a second that everything is resolved, but perhaps now we can settle down to a reasonable debate.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Your welcome. I was actually planning on promoting the nomination to the set of hooks I just finished building, but reconsidered after I noticed what a nice looking article you had put together and that the article had an image with a free license. No promises that the hook will land in a lead slot, but at least it still has a chance.

For future reference, the easy way to add an image to a nomination after it is already created is to find another nomination with an image and copy the three line HTML block containing that nomination's image into your nomination (the <div> tag surrounding the image controls the image placement). Then all you need to do is update the image name and image description. --Allen3  20:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In fact, I was heading in that direction, looking for another example so I could steal copy, but something came up. I do understand that having an image doesn't guarantee it will be the DYK with an image, but at least it now has a shot.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Maclean game refuge

Just saw that you tracked down that article I pointed out - thanks! 198.228.201.159 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was both interesting and helpful. Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Leroux citation table

Thanx for your work on that citation table. It looks like a lot of work, even if done in Excel. I can't imagine that my clumsy cutting and pasting preserved tabs very well. --Africangenesis (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't too much work, but I feared that the original looked like a sea of text.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too, and made sure it was at the end. take care. --Africangenesis (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tara VanDerveer

Tara VanDerveer DYK

Yes very nice solid work on the article. --Erp (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, very appreciated.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

Me? Baiting? Are you serious?!?! I think you will find I did not instigate the "fuck off" comment. Malleus posted the first comment which was addressed to me. Malleus had little reason to join in yet he posted a arrogant comment. He then responded with an unnecessary use of profanity which should not be condoned on Misplaced Pages under any circumstances.

"Seems like you learned nothing from the pig's ear you made of that MediaCityUK article Stevo. And so far as the content of the Architecture article goes, this is the top, so behave yourself"

Explain to me how that belittling comment is not "baiting"? I think you really need to look at conversation again. And Smithers vs "fuck off" is no comparison. I said that because I felt Malleus had little reason to butt in with a arrogant and irritating comment. Stevo1000 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the difference. The comment of Malleus, while strong, was a comment on content. Your response was not a comment on the article, but a shot at a contributor. I trust you are familiar with WP:NPA, where it says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Malleus's response, while strongly worded, wasn't a personal attack, but a strong version of "stop that". I agree with you that there is no comparison, but not in the way you think. Your response was a personal attack. His was not. I don't like his choice of words, either in the first comment or the second, but that's a personal taste, not a policy conclusion. Your response was a violation of policy. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus started it with a belittling designed to bait. I suppose you condone editors using profanity? How civil - it sets a great example. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stevo1000 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't condoned using profanity, so your supposition is not based upon anything I have posted. I've said, more than once, that I do not like it. However, I find it difficult to make a strong case against MF when you start it. His comment to you was a comment on an article. Acceptable. Your response was a comment on an editor. Not acceptable. You appear to have convinced yourself that MF started it. While he posted first to you, his post was within policy. You were the first to violate policy. That distinction is critical. If you choose to respond again, please address that point, as it is the crux of the matter.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there is a difference of opinion. I think you're wrong for letting another editor use profanity and you think I'm wrong for saying Smithers. Malleus has told editors to fuck off before and driven other editors to the point of irritation. Any editor could have 1 edit, 100 edits, 1000 edits, 10000 edits or 100000+ edits - but that does not give him/her permission to use profanity against other editors. Simply saying an abrasive editor is still on here because he/she has contributed much to Misplaced Pages does not excuse such behaviour. To me it seems a rule for one, a rule for another it seems. My concern is that you condone that sort of behaviour which is quite worrying considering you're an admin. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Stevo, there is no "rule" against using profanity. You can look at the current civility RfC for a confirmation of that. There are rules against things like copyright violations and personal attacks, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Condone means to Approve or Accept. I don't approve. As for accept, it isn't against policy, so my only tool is to let him know I don't approve, which I have done.
2. Malleus's less than ideal language was directed at Conduct, which is allowed. The first person to use language directed at an editor was you. Your edit violated policy, his did not. Please comment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You said truth (copyright violation - is not Internet Freedom)

I'm not going to be able to help you, sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Other sources exist (but this is not main thing). Because second option even better and simplier: Jimbo Wales has to personally and publically apologize for the insult in relation of the professor - Яков Борисович Юдельсон (and for the illegal blocking) on the Russian Misplaced Pages. Okey? - 2.92.88.103 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC).

• Many messages which you got here - are not from people with the needed authority. They nothing know about many things (info in different contexts). Small number of the obligations - are nonsence. Because Jimbo Wales and admins must change rules of Misplaced Pages in accordance with a Law (of any jurisdiction which is represented on Misplaced Pages). International legislation - also. It is great trouble for him (he wants use separate jurisdictions and in the same time he focuses attention on the law of Florida). When he wants use separate jurisdiction - he must respect legislation of relevant countries (hundreds countries). A large number of them does not let to insult people and block them by the local rules. Thus, he must select (it is great trouble - I know). When Jimbo writes that Florida is the God - this means: Jimbo is owner of the wiki System (Wikipedias on all languages must respect words of the its Founder). Because not owner has no right say: Florida is God. Owners of the System must carry the responsibility in this case and double standarts .... (respect of a large number of legislations - is reality and nothing more). Such message like this - is not simply so (like template - the more so). Jimbo has chance find public response soon. All rules of Misplaced Pages must respect Human rights (reputation of any professor or of the UK government - 0,0000000000000000001% from 100%). - 2.92.88.185 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

Oppose

Thank you for your look at this with an open mind and voicing oppose to the main stream! People like you make me stay, to be continued, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

typo fix

Please review -- think you meant MF. Nobody Ent 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Weird, as the "C" isn't close to the "M". Not sure how it happened.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Tricia McLaughlin

Hi, this was an article you deleted in December 2011. I feel like the move was unduly harsh, that the copyright-violating link could've been taken out and the article remain. Will you let me restart it without the Vimeo link?--Aichikawa (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to start over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks----Aichikawa (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Steven Zhang 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Your speedy deletion

You did not respond to my discussion on the talk page, pointing you and others to the discussion of the similar category.

Why did you label it an "attack page". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's try acting like grownups.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the little boy throwing the board off the table....

Please respond on the talk page of the category, without the uncivilities: Again, why did you cut short the community discussion? The parallel category is under discussion and the characterization of it as an attack page has been disputed. Nominate it for a proper deletion, if you want, but respect the community discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not interested. If you recreate, I won't touch it again, but I don't see this as productive.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Many people don't like the populated category, but even ScottMacDonald (finally) has agreed to respect the community discussion. I would ask that you let that discussion run its course, as a courtesy. Of course, you or another editor is welcome to nominate it for a standard deletion (not speedy, given that many experienced administrators have disputed the speedy deletion as improper).

My question is: If you regard that phrase as being an attack, why haven't you sanctioned/warned/complained to AGK---its author? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, this is not worth the time. When I am working on potential speedies, I have a routine, developed form hundreds of examples. In almost all cases, I make sure the author has been notified, as I think it is quite rude to delete something and not let the author know. On many occasions, I have declined to carry out a CSD, and asked the editor proposing it to make sure they notify the author. Early on, I did this for all cases, but I quickly learned that it is a waste of time with attack pages. I've probably deleted a 100. In every single other case, it was a drive by, and a notification, or warning, is a waste of time. So now, when I see a possible attack page, identified in red, for especially speedy action, I read it to ensure that there is something negative (which there was) and delete it and move on.

So I missed one. I'm happy with my weighing of type I and Type II errors I'm not about to spend five minutes research on the next 100 attack pages in case it came form a regular and some tut-tutting is warranted. In the meantime, the OTRS request for permissions queue has reached 474 and I have better things to do with my time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, which does explain things. Keep up the good work. (I should have overlooked the "behave like adults" edit description, and not replied in kind---or unkind.) Regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the snippy reply. I shouldn't be under stress, as I am on vacation, but I seem to have a bigger pile of things to do than when I'm working.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Women's basketball

Articles does need a bit of a structure and a lot of improvement. There were some major problems at one point with the article because it seemed to only acknowledge that women in the United States played basketball. I tried to neutralise that some. If I was doing a major improvement effort on the article, I'd honestly start by finding sources and fully citing what I can, blow out as much of the article as possible with full citations. Once that blowout was done, then see where daughter articles can be copied and what completed sections could be rewritten a bit and then put into another article like history of basketball. --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge tends to US centric with a fair bit of Australian knowledhe thrown in. I think my book collection probably covers England to a degree. If I was focusing on the broad rules, I would go with the FIBA rules for international competition as the international default. this explains some of the differences. FIBA rules are often used as the international standard for domestic competitions for nation's with Olympic aspirations as you want your women consistently playing them so there is no whip saw confusion between one rule set and another. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women's sport might be a place to start looking for people. The basketball project doesn't tend to get as much assistance is it could, but there are some eyes on the women's side.--LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Link to subpages

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You can also import it from User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js with this:

importScript('User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js');

PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If, like me, you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it appears you've been in contact with Matt Bomer (or his representatives), perhaps you could ask them where he was born? I know it wasn't Spring, Texas (or anywhere else in Texas), but all the website bios that copy each other still list Texas, including, unfortunately, ours. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email requesting the info.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I was affected by Sandy, but far less than some. I was out of external power through Thursday, but had a generator. That said, the hot water wasn't on the generator, so it was good to have it back. The bigger deal to me was the lack of internet access for several days. My office was, and still is closed, which has been a pain. The bigger deal is that my daughter is in NY south of 38th street, so was without power until Friday night. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Pope Theodoros II.jpg & User:Mad mido2020

Hi, you deleted a copyvio image I tagged under F9 earlier. The user has since re-uploaded it again, and re-inserted it into an article currently featuring on ITN. User:Mad mido2020 has a history of uploading copyvio files both here and on Commons. Can you take a look? Thanks! KTC (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, and left followup comment to uploader. Thanks for your diligence--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The link has been added by someone whose username is very similar to the domain being added

Adam Joseph

Who cares? If you want to delete that photo, delete it. I don't care. But do not challenge all of my uploads or leave idiotic message about being a sirrahpro. Sysmithfan (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I care. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. Did you not understand the question about "sirrahpro"? sirrahpro owns the copyright to the image you uploaded. If you are that person, you can do it. That's why I asked, it was hardly an idiotic question. That you don't understand the question probably means you aren't that person.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear some things up. First, this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). This is "Adam Joseph performing1"(not a screenshot), which means I took this (personally). Since I work for the so called "press" (as a assistant photographer), I split my time between New York (USA), Different areas of Japan (mainly "Shibuya, Tokyo" and "Osaka", and "Fukuoka"). With that being said, I get access to many concerts. Now that you understand that, I hope that explains how I get most of my pictures. Sysmithfan (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm in favor of clearing things up, but this hasn't achieved that purpose. First, I cannot parse meaning that I did not that this is not video (but that does not mean that I have continuously done in this in the past). I don't know what you meant to say. Second, if you are trying to make a technical point about screenshots, fine, but to quote something I heard recently "who cares?" Seriously, does it matter whether it is a screenshot or something else? Third, what does any of this have to do with the images I deleted? In one case, it occurred to me that it might be your copyright, so I asked, and you called it an idiotic question. Fourth, in the case of the photo you claim to have taken, I indicated that you needed to supply permission, and you deleted the post, without a response. Any reasonable person will assume you aren't planning to provide permission, so I deleted it. Fifth, I welcome contributors who have photographic skills. Mine, sadly are lacking, so I am appreciative of anyone who is willing to freely give their work to Misplaced Pages. However, deleting reasonable questions, and taking pot shots at people trying to help makes things difficult, Do you disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I will ask that excuse any previous or current grammar errors I have made. Currently I am multi-tasking. And I have been doing so for the past three hours. It is hard to keep your focus in different areas of importance. Anyway, what I meant to say is... this is a screenshot, meaning that I did not take this picture and that this is not my video. With that being said, this does not mean I have continuously done in this in the past (Uploaded screenshots). Also, "NatalieStewart.jpg" is my picture. I do not have a problem with people freely using that picture. It is not copyrighted. It just a picture I took during the concert and uploaded here. No permission is required from me for you or anyone to use it. I will be uploading that picture back soon. Sysmithfan (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand multi-tasking, I'm trying to do so at the moment, and probably under performing. My comment wasn't intended to be critical, I simply didn't understand your point, so appreciate your rewording. As for the first issue, as you agree one of the images is a screenshot, not yours, you understand why it is not allowed, I hope. One detail, your link goes to the Misplaced Pages Upload Wizard, so I am not entirely sure to which image you refer. As for the NatalieStewart.jpg image, well, copyright is a tricky area. You are incorrect to say it is not copyrighted. It most certainly is if it was taken almost anywhere in the world (not sure if there are any exceptions). You might mean that you are willing to release it into the public domain, and many people will casually say material in the public domain does not have a copyright, but it is more accurate to say that public domain is a form of license of the material. If you have released it into the public domain, then we are grateful, but we need a permission statement. No offense intended, but every single day people upload photos they claim they took. In some cases, typically in the case of poor quality photos not published anywhere else, some are willing to accept the word of an editor, but when a photo has been published elsewhere, and is of decent quality, we like to have a permission statement on file. We want to protect the rights of copyright holders.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I understand and apologize if I offended you also. Although this is no excuse, there have been wikipedia users that have been aggravating me and following my everyday edits, which really annoys me. Unless otherwise stated, most of my pictures are uploaded under a Creative Commons license not public domain. But I will try to do better with this in the future. Sometimes choosing between different licenses can be confusing. Sysmithfan (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for understanding. I do a lot of work with images, but still find some of the licenses confusing. (and I do understand that being harrassed by some editors makes it difficult to treat others differently, it is something I have to watch myself.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules about following a user's every edit

Are there any rules that prevents a user from following another user's every edits? Because I am constantly bothered a person, who follows me everywhere. He is constantly badgering me and it is very annoying. Is there anywhere to stop this? Sysmithfan (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also as a side note, when I use bold text, it does not mean I am shouting. It just means I do not want you to miss the important statement and that it is a complete urgency. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This person User:DAJF is constantly following me. That is why I made the "box statement" on my talk page. It was mainly for him. By the way, I removed you from that list. He is not trying to help. He always join in my discussions, almost every page I have edited, and all of my debates. Can you please do something about him? Sysmithfan (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Discretely following a user's edits (especially by an admin) may be justified when investigating persistent violations of policy. Otherwise there is a clear policy at Misplaced Pages:Harassment. In such cases the usual procedure would be to address the matter in a friendly approach on the editor's talk page, and if that does not have an effect, and the complaint is wholly justified, then making a report (with diffs) at WP:ANI would probably be the next best step. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Now isn't a great time. I'm involved in something off-wiki, with some very brief interludes to check in here, but I'd have to do some research to deal with it. If it is still a problem tomorrow, let me know, if it is more urgent, use the adminhelp template. (Or ask Kugpung, who has more experience with these matters)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He is not an admin. Also, I have asked him to stop, politely. But he continues to do this and it is very annoying. I need help with him. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I will save you the work. I will bring proof of this matter. Whether this somehow incriminates me or not, I will bring all of it (proof of his Wik-hounding. Sysmithfan (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A serious message about poultry

Your comment here inspired me to write Poultry feed. You're completely right. It's shocking that we have a large article on Cattle feeding without even a stub for chicken feed. This systematic bias against poultry will not stand!--xanchester (t) 05:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. (I still want a photo of the feed itself, I'll see what I can find).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)