User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 27

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Heatherawalls's talk page.
Message added 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

heather walls (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance is requested

I have mentioned your name at User talk:Johnfos#CCI notice and thought it would be polite to let you know... Johnfos (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Mark Lawrence Deletion

Why did you delete the Mark Lawrence page? I spent some time adjusting it so it was acceptable and you just go and delete it for no reason. All I did was copy the About the Author he uses everywhere. If you really think it was a copyright infringement, you could have just sourced it in a second. I didn't bother to save what I wrote because I didn't think a wiki page could be so surreptitiously deleted without any real reason with no record of the edits. I mean the author himself posted about it on his facebook page, and when I saw how crappy the page is I tried to make it better.

If you were to put it back up, I'd have no problem fixing it, either by putting it in quotes and referencing it, or creating something new, though that may be difficult as his extended personal info isn't around anywhere (I think it's because of his day job). I'd even have no problem creating a new page, but it would be annoying to redo all of the wikipedia formatting again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigZ7337 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC) BigZ7337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I missed that your addition of copyrighted material wasn't the creation of an article, you were adding it to an existing article, although it had been created only a few hours earlier. I was surprised to see that you hadn't been notified, as I always check to make sure the editor is notified. I see what happened. The editor that created it is Naelphin, who was notified. It is quite unusual to have an article created by one editor, get proposed for PROD, then copyvio edits by a separate person, and proposed for CSD all in the same day. Sorry, I missed that. I have restored it to the version without the copyright infringements. It is now an article which deserves deletion for other reasons, but I'll let it run its course. Which includes the possibility that you decide to improve it without infringing on copyright.

Your suggestion that I could simply sourced it is flawed for two reasons. First it took you maybe 30 seconds to copy and paste copyrighted material into the article. One cannot simply add a reference - that's not allowed. It would have to be rewritten, and referenced, which would take a hour or so. Your 30 seconds edit does not impose on me an obligation to rewrite an article. It was a violation, so I removed it. However, I am sympathetic that Wikipedia formatting is painful, at first. If you want to propose a rewrite, and drop is here, or on the talk page and let me know, I'll be happy to help with the formatting, as long as it is in your words, and not a copy-paste or close paraphrase.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, the copy and paste is the least of what I did, I reorganized the whole page to be more presentable, and by reverting it to before I edited (without letting me see or copy what I changed) it would give me the same work as if you had completely deleted it. The whole reason that the article was getting attention was because the author himself posted a link on his facebook about it. I saw how crappy it was (which is now what it is back to) and I fixed it. Then the douche bag that initially proposed deletion with horrible spelling (reddogsix) was apparently annoyed that someone tried to fix it and requested speedy deletion. The whole thing is just incredibly goofy and frankly a little rude. I would have no problem rewriting an original about the author, but I would like to have everything back below that, as there was nothing wrong with it and the wiki formatting would be annoying to do all over. Is there any way that you could show my last edit, or is there someway for you to copy and paste that part of the edit here or in an email? Also, should I just create a new page for it instead of using the one already there? BigZ7337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I spent a decent amount of time fixing up the page. I've been a long term Wikipedia user, but this is really my first time editing a whole page. If you get the chance, let me know what you think of my changes. Here's the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lawrence_%28Writer%29 Thanks, and now I realize that you didn't randomly delete the page, you deleted it because some else called for a prompt/speedy deletion (for dubious reasons in my mind), and you were just answering his call. BigZ7337 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better. It could still use some independent references, but nice job so far. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

ALWAYS ELABORATE AND EXPLAIN CHANGES TO BE MADE AND GIVE ATLEAST ONE DAYS TIME BEFORE YOU DELETE A CONTRIBUTION.

I came here because you deleted my contribution to the article Rani Maria Vattalil,not elaborating on the reason. You have not explained for what,who,how,where,which all,why elaborately and fully,?you didnt say what all parts OF MY CONTRIBUTION are copyright violation and how it became a copyright violation,? I would like to know what attracted you to this article AND TO DELETE MY CONTRIBUTION. Came by yourself? or some body requested ?

and I want you to know that i will go to teahouse if i feel like i need help or assistance.Deleting the contributions of a user is not the way to force him to join teahouse. and wikipedia is not the only wiki on the internet,how do you know that i am NOT an experienced editor.?

If you were an experienced editor , you would have put elaborated and well explained good reasons saying why,what all,which lines and what could have been good edits and what all are copyright violation ON MY tALK PAGE OR ARTICLE TALKPAGE.

===== Do not delete another users contributions for a BARNSTAR or points, or IF you are angry or if somebody suggests without properly explained reason and ready to offer you a BARNstar if you delete it and most importantly DO NOT DELETE without first informing the contributor to improve or change his edits you consider not right and without inviting for discussion. And you should give atleast ONE DAY time before deleting it. ===== ===== I donot know you personally,but i feel like you are doing this for a BARNSTAR OR for forcing me to join TEAHOUSE.

=====

Please understand,,,,,What if i have more talent and editorial skills than you? ANd what if i know wikipedia rules and userS AND AdminS behaviour MORE than you?

NOTE: i am also a busy person,but i am a friendly user with whom you can discuss and suggest changes and improvements.LET me myself make changes and give me atleast ONE DAY TIME before you Delete it.buT YOU SHOULD elaborate AND explain THE CHANGES TO BE MADE.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you feel that way. I'm puzzled at your suggestions that you might be an experienced editor: how do you know that i am NOT an experienced editor, and what if i know wikipedia rules. I have no idea how much you know about Wikipedia rules or editing. What I do know is that you are unaware of our stance on copyright violations. We do not have, and will not have a "one-day" allowance for copyright violations. My intention is to remove them immediately as soon as I see them. On rare occasions, there will be a mistake, and something will be removed that is, in fact, properly licensed. Of of the hundreds I have deleted, that has happened once that I recall, and it was quickly restored. We do not want anyone to think that posting material in violation of copyrights is acceptable.

I am not "forcing" you to go to the Teahouse. Removal of copyright violations are done rather abrupt, although links to reasons are always given. The Teahouse is a place where editors (including myself, take the time to answer questions and patiently explain things. That sounds like something you would like. If not, that's fine as well.

I hope you are a good editor and want to contribute. The article on Rani Maria Vattalil is in poor shape and could use a good editor to improve it. I hope you are that editor. But improving it means adding material in your own words, or, in a very limited way, using short passages in quotes with proper references. I hope that is your goal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You said:

If you were an experienced editor , you would have put elaborated and well explained good reasons saying why,what all,which lines and what could have been good edits and what all are copyright violation ON MY tALK PAGE OR ARTICLE TALKPAGE.

In most cases, one editor tags the article with a request for deletion template, and adds a note to the talk page, with a link to the policy. In those cases, I can usually check that it is, indeed, a copyright violation, and then simply delete it. There's no need to ire out a long explanation, as the short statement is sufficient, although if the editor doesn't understand, I am always willing to explain. In this case, I sensed that you might be unaware of the rules, so I made a point posting on your talk page, as well as the article talk page. So the oddity is that I usually need to do neither, while in this case I did both, yet you are complaining that there should be explanations in both places. In short, there are. They may be less wordy that you would like, but if you want more, as you apparently do, just ask, and I'll tell you more. That's how this place works.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I got the email, will look into the next steps later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cory Monteith

Could you check please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cory_Monteith?, could there be an exception since Cory Monteith never appeared on DYK and it's almost impossible to expand his article so much? Thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't think of any reason it should be an exception. The point of DYK isn't to promote people you like, it is to encourage brand-new articles, or substantial expansions of existing articles. The rules can be bent a little in exceptional cases, but this isn't a close call. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

And how much expansion does it need to be reconsidered for DYK? Thank you. The fact is that I just love him. Timothyhere (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the DYK rules it would have to be expanded by a factor of five over 5 days. That's not feasible.

Not every article is appropriate for a DYK. I've worked on dozens of articles that didn't qualify, and I care deeply about some of the subjects.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. Timothyhere (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey I appreciate your enthusiasm, and hope you will keep editing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oy vey

Hey there! I hate to put this on you, but, I am preparing to head overseas tomorrow and won't be around to deal with this situation, whatever it...is :) I don't know if he'll follow through with ANI, but, I'd suggest you file something to get this cleared up. See his...plea here. Sorry this has had to happen! :( SarahStierch (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarah,

Thanks for the heads up. Not to worry, I'm on top of the situation. A sad one really, a wannabe editor who just doesn't seem to understand our rules. I'm sure you are gone by now, but enjoy your trip.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#BIOGRAPHIES. Chap seems to have no understanding whatsoever of copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The post above this, from Sarah, doesn't mention names, but it is the same person. Thanks for the heads up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Johnyjohny294 (talk · contribs) and Goodjones (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets. Same copyright issues, same subject focus, same mass amounts of redirects, and same claims about being hacked, etc. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't know enough about sock-puppetry to know if they are the same, but I don't see any signs that one of them has a clue, so the project is better off without them.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've weighed in.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Blue Square Thing's talk page.
Message added 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Christian right

I will not respond to you on that DRN, as it's way off the rails.

The issue here is that the conservative editors, for reasons that are genuinely unclear to me, seem to want to scrub all mention of the connection between the Christian Right and the Republican Party.

As it stands, if you're part of the CR in America, you almost certainly vote Republican, and this has created a powerful voting block that heavily influences -- if not outright controls -- the GOP platform on social issues.

That's not my opinion; it's what reliable sources say. And it's what the article must say. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as off the rails at all. I see a couple pointed comments, which, in the interest of dispute resolution, would be better left unsaid, but one has to have a pretty thin skin to be so-offended as to walk away based upon some mild comments that didn't even mention your name. It's my opinion that someone who walks away form a dispute resolution that has barely started, with no provocation, should be prohibited form contributing to the article in question. We don't have such a rule, but I'm thinking it is a good idea, and you could be a good test case.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus, you are over-reacting, and ought to rethink your position. I do not see ANY support for your claim that anyone wants "to want to scrub all mention of the connection between the Christian Right and the Republican Party". I object to over-simplification. Do you support over-simplification?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the edit history. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

However, this is not a good place to debate the merits of the content. A dispute resolution has been instigated. You are declaring you are leaving in a huff, for vague reasons. If we allow anyone to walk out of dispute resolution for any pretext, then continue editing the article in question as if the DR never took place, there's no point in holding a DR. One way to get people to take DR seriously is to allow parties to engage or not, as they see fit, but if they choose not to engage, they should agree to leave the article. Do you have a better option?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to Look at the edit history, I'm notoriously bad at reading people's minds. Are you trying to make a point? If so what is the point?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing vague involved. Dispute resolution requires good faith and they don't have any, so I won't participate. The right place to discuss this content issue is the talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see a valid reason for refusal to engage. Not surprisingly, those you have been in dispute with feel strongly. I don't see any evidence that any of the volunteers have treated you badly. It may be easier to reach a consensus without you. I do agree that the place to discuss the content issue is the talk page. I don't anticipate that the DR will get down to precise word-smithing, but they might conclude, for example, that the list approach is not appropriate. Debating the exact wording of the appropriate prose should take place on the talk page, and I hope you will contribute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at my user page and you might notice a fact relevant to dispute resolution. Suffice it to say that I've concluded DRN is worse than useless. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I like a good mystery, but I like it on my own terms. I glanced at your user page, have no idea what you are getting at, and not inclined to try to figure it out. Suffice it to say I see no evidence that you've given Dispute Resolution a chance.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I am not permitted to dispel your mystery. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ISS, while having an account for about two months somehow entered a voluntary IB. This is what he is referring to.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A voluntary interaction ban is not a rationale for refusing to play a part in a DR. Which is fine with me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Thank you for the notification. I don't have any objections to collapsing discussions on conduct disputes, and I can attest that it's regularly done on DRN. DRN focuses on content disputes, disputes on conduct are better handled on other noticeboards. The redaction will likely prevent the participants from being further inflamed, encouraging them to focus their efforts on resolving the content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

bowl of strawberries

thank you. but there were sooooo many people who helped me through this. i thank all of you. bpolkAbearfellow (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse query

Hi. Re this issue at the Teahouse, I'll discuss it here as I didn't want to clog up their question forum + I know they aren't frightfully keen on non-hosts answering questions in the first place. Anyhow, it's OK to link to a fully copyright source as long as that source isn't itself a copyvio. However, from what I've seen, all of his videos are copyvios, using copyright tracks from other artists, clips from copyright films, television shows, professional music videos etc. with no evidence of permission. We shouldn't be linking to them at all. I'm also pretty sure that the user in question has two accounts [1] [2]. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow, I had no idea they discouraged responses by non-hosts. I'll either have to sign up, or cut back. On the merits, I posted at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Linking_to_fair_use_mashup.3F. While those videos clearly use material subject to copyright, they may qualify as fair use. See this for example.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

They've got a bit better about it now that the pilot phase is over. Back then, anyone who answered and wasn't a host got a "Thanks but no thanks" message. Now, outsiders are sort of OK, but they're supposed to do it the "Teahouse way", i.e. start each response with "Hi" and leave one of these on the talk page of the person who asked the question each time you respond to them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've tried to follow the model answer, but didn't know about the template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ticket:2012040910007965

Is there any chance that there are some unrelated emails for the Mouawad series of images covered in this ticket that didn't get merged in with this one? I'm not seeing where they explicitly stated a free and usable license for them. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In the middle of something, will check later this afternoon.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No rush. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see 2012040410009347 I guess I should merge the two groups.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Merged. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Luba Mason entry deleted June 2011 (A7)

The entry on Luba Mason that you deleted in June 2011 was not created by me, and may have had little information. I believe she would be sufficiently 'noteworthy' with Broadway credits for decades, as well as tv roles, and 2 cds also to her credit. If you do a search on Wikipedia for her name, you will find many entries referencing her work. I would like to post a complete bio and artist credits for her, can I recreate this page? I don't know how else to ask this question. Thank you! Weinwalk (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)weinwalk

You are free to recreate an article about her. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that. A question - if Luba gives me her press release bio which is also on her web page, is that copyright infringement, or fair use? I assume the format would have to be adapted, but would the text be ok? Weinwalk (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)weinwalk

In general, no, not OK. Some people assume that because a press release is intended to be spread as widely as possible, it not under copyright, but in general it is. Unless it has been licensed appropriately (which is rare), not only can you not use the text as is, you cannot closely paraphrase it. You can reference it, and you can use facts from it, but the bio should be written from scratch, ideally using multiple sources.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Morbus (Video Game) Deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbus_(Video_Game) Remscar The information that was on the Morbus wikipedia article was not infringing upon copyrighted data from ModDB. The information that was written on ModDB is from morbus.remscar.com the games official website. The information was also originally authored by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.153.129 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The only way to use copyrighted text, even if written by you, is to arrange for permission. You were given the link on your talk page, I'll repeat it here: Donating copyrighted materials--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks, Theopolisme 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'm in discussion with our resident copyright expert on whether and how to change the policy wording. Thanks for pointing out the deficiency. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 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)