User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 34
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi Sphilbrick,
Thank you for your kind assistance on this regard.
Anuradha
අනුරාධ (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Requesting your opinion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: The deletion of page of E.W. Beth Dissertation Prize
Hello Sphilbrick,
thank you very much for your suggestions about how to improve the page about the E.W. Beth Prize. Actually it was my first contribution to wikipedia, so I didn't expect (probably I should have got more informations before starting) that it was not possible to copy/paste these kind of pages. It seems to me that the material I wrote is *in practice* not protected by copyright, in the sense that nobody would ever complain about its presence in wikipedia. But I understand that in theory it is.
Essentially you suggest me to rephrase the sentences? Perhaps cold you restore the page, by pruning the material to the bare minimum following your experience, so I can try to develop it in a more careful way?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garetjax3891 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and thanks again for your suggestions and for investing your time on giving me some useful advices. I tried to improve the page. Please have a look if you want. I didn't have time to add all the previous winners, I'll do that in the next few days. But perhaps somebody else will also contribute! This is wikipedia! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garetjax3891 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Sphilbrick. I just got a note from you because of my editing of the vitamin C megadosage page. You say I should sign my edits- "In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ) " I am a biochem professor, expert of vitamin C, but not on wikipedia editing, though my nutrition class is now editing wiki pages each semester. So when I edit a page, do you mean I should go to the talk page and write. I just did an edit of this page 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Roc Ordman ordman@beloit.edu Is that what we should do?
Archive links
[1] 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, re "ensure that copyright holders would still get traffic to their site as long as the site exists, and only if dead, would traffic be diverted to the archive" - I reiterate what I wrote to Mr. Wales... whether something is or is not published elsewhere makes no difference to whether it is legal to publish it. I'm sure you don't think we can publish a photograph from BBC News just because the article has gone away; why is the content of the article any different? We wouldn't link to a photo that we thought contravened copyright either - or the text from an old news article. "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link" - WP:COPYLINK. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that, and I'm mulling it over, as it is a good point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your time to consider it. At first, I thought the 'legal angle' was an excuse for OP to get his way in a battle, but I did a bit of research and thinking. Our use of web-archives opens up a whole quagmire of legal implications, so I hope it'll be discussed properly. It might come down to "fair use", which I do not like; see Wikipedia:Veganism parable. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's a number of aspects that need further thought. Before getting to one of those, thanks for noting that the citation has both links. I have some thoughts on that, will share at Jimbo's page. However, I am currently troubled by the observation that archives should be used to circumvent pay walls. That bothers me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussions are still ongoing, if you want to chip in. 88.104.28.176 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
uploaded for article which presumably was deleted
|
|---|
| == Orphaned non-free media (File:Gwynne Pugh Urban Studio, Inc. Logo low res.png) ==
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) 05:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC) |
Re: Close paraphrase
I did that such a long time ago that I'm no longer 100% sure that this was what I was referring to, but I'm almost certain (maybe 95% sure) that this is the one. It is her official site, after all. Either way, it's still a pretty close match. Sorry about that, I'm usually good with noting that kind of stuff. *bows head in shame* ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
uploaded for article which presumably was deleted
|
|---|
Orphaned non-free media (File:Cutlass Music Logo.png)
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) 04:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Shoppink Icon.png)
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) 04:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC) |
Spider mite
You did the right thing here, based on WP policy. I had e-mailed the original author, but I did not receive a response. My action was against policy. I was attempting to mitigate the harm our errant editor had already done to the original author, but since Dr. Crenshaw has not responded, we must now follow policy as you have done. If Dr. Crenshaw ever does respond, we can then take further action. At an absolute minimum, we must ensure that the original article si promenently cited. -Arch dude (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Manhattan Rebellion
Hi. You recently deleted the article, which I had tagged for close paraphrasing. Wasn't there a copyvio-free early stub version in the article history? Having a stub would be better than nothing at all, until someone rewrites the article. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I thought I had checked, and I just now double-checked, the very first version had substantial copying.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Photo of Church
It is on the list as Jubail Church. It really would be very good to have a photo of it. Amandajm (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I have uploaded pictures. I added one to the article. but I want to make sure I have the permission statement field before adding the others.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Project Versus J / J-Stars Victory VS
I'm sorry but I'm not sure why you erased Project Versus J (now J-Stars Victory VS)'s article. It is a legit page: http://www.bandaigames.channel.or.jp/list/jump45/pc/ And what's supposed to mean this: "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.smashboards.com/threads/333711/" if smashboards is a forum page and they are not even close to have the rights for that game. DragonNJMB (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Jubail Church
I don't like what is happening there. The Government would undoubtedly say that what they are doing is protecting a rare ancient site from harm. But that is not the case. By not permitting archaeologists near it, its state cannot be monitored. Having been dug out of the sand and left exposed, it will fall to pieces rapidly.
See Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Bibles are prohibited, so why on earth would they be motivated to preserve one of the world's oldest places of Christian worship? I agree with you. I is undoubtedly the same place.
Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, any further thoughts on this? It's something of a tough problem because the copyright issue is complicated by the edit war. Could you recommend any different process? Pkeets (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've been distracted, with look at it later today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to complete this. I looked at one online version, but I'm told that's not the right one, so don't have the ability to review this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you suggest another process. For example, where would I find someone involved with music article copyright issues who has access to the online Grove? Is there a page to ask about this? Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- You might try User talk:Wizardman, who is active in copyright. I do not know if he has online access. I'm going out of town for a week, with limited access, so can't do any more at the moment. If Wizardman cannot help directly, he may be able to suggest someone who can.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Can you suggest another process. For example, where would I find someone involved with music article copyright issues who has access to the online Grove? Is there a page to ask about this? Pkeets (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to complete this. I looked at one online version, but I'm told that's not the right one, so don't have the ability to review this.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick. I just got a note from you because of my editing of the vitamin C megadosage page. You say I should sign my edits- "In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ) " I am a biochem professor, expert of vitamin C, but not on wikipedia editing, though my nutrition class is now editing wiki pages each semester. So when I edit a page, do you mean I should go to the talk page and write. I just did an edit of this page 144.89.17.122 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Roc Ordman ordman@beloit.edu Is that what we should do?
- You didn't "just" get a note from me. I left that note in 2010, which is why I was drawing a complete blank.
- Please add new posts to the end of a talk page.
- Yes, you sign a post by adding four tilde's, but if you are not logged in, it will add your IP address. (It is actually easier to click on the pen icon) I haven't looked at Vitamin C megadosage (until just now), so I wasn't reacting to those edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please delete and SALT Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/INC Central Temple as it has been created three times by Zhzhw (talk · contribs) as a blatant copyright violation. It is also about time for a WP:CCI of this user whose contributions seem to be mostly copy-paste. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm out of town until next Thursday, with limited access. If this needs doing now, please ask someone else. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
File:Michael Falzon, photograph by Gavin D. Andrew Studio Portrait.jpg
again want to thank you for your patience proving copyright permission for this image :) I hate thinking of names (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to join the Darius Dhlomo Drive
|
Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) |
Deletion of Willy Santos page
Hello Sphilbrick, I updated the Willy Santos page and was wondering if I can correct any copy to follow any guidelines that were broken or give you reference for the changes to get the page undeleted. Thank you - Raibyn Raibyn (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- A bit under the weather at the moment, will look at in the morning.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article is about a professional skateboarder, which doesn't make him automatically notable. As an aside, there was an article about him deleted in 2006 for the same reason, that there is no assertion of importance. I admit to not knowing much about the skateboading world, so I have no idea whether being a pro is a big deal or not, but the article is about someone who gets paid for what he does, which is what billions of people do. The article had no references (a personal website can be used for certain things, but it does not qualify as a WP:Reliable Source, so it could have been deleted for that reason. You need to show that he is wp:Notable; the link will help explain how.
- Check out Tony Hawk. You don't have to get that far, but it will give you an idea of an acceptable article about a skateboarder. Category:American skateboarders contains other examples. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Sphilbrick. I reviewed the links you posted, Willy is very much a notable american skateboarder/actor, It was my mistake not to include reference links. He has won world championships including the xgames, actor in tv/movies and has multiple published independent sources about him. Please let me know how to go about adding a more detailed information and reference links to his page. Thank you. Raibyn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing that he may be very notable. However, notability has to be established in the article, with links to reliable sources. Creating references is one of the challenging tasks for new editors, see Referencing for beginners for help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bedson sock
You might want to take a look at an IP's comments at User talk:Agricolae, User talk:Amatulic and my talk page. Now I wonder why I'm being singled out for the deletions. Maybe because Bedson sees me as his bete noir? The IP originates from Australia, but it strains AGF to think there's no connection. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thanks. You might want to read [2]. The sourcing problem was serious and not always easy to detect. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I recall that discussion, but hadn't remembered the name. I illustrated my point with copyvio, just because it was handy, but OR, fringe and other related issues very much fit the paradigm.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Thanks. You might want to read [2]. The sourcing problem was serious and not always easy to detect. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Commons admin
I noticed your comment at the RFB discussion. I'd certainly like to see you as a fellow admin on Commons. When you're ready, I'd be happy to do the RFA for you. The best place on Commons for you to do preparatory work is here. There are thousands of copyvio and out of scope images in there that need to be tagged for DR and CSD. You might want to start in the May or June cats, as I've done alot of tagging already in the earlier months. I usually get atleast 30 or 40 DRs and CSDs out of each day's images. INeverCry 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- The images in Category:Media needing categories haven't been patrolled or categorized. This means that many of them are out of scope or copyvio. You'll find screenshots, internet images, unused personal pics, promotional pics, album covers, etc. INeverCry 20:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I get it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are probably somewhere around 40000 bad images mixed in there right now. I've tagged atleast 10000 out of there in my time on Commons. You can take a look at the copy & paste DR rationales I use here. There's never a shortage of crap in the "Latest files" either. INeverCry 21:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I get it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Per the unofficial guideline on college articles, we put the seal first, then the logo later. Not to mention it looks really weird to have the logo at both the top and bottom of the infobox. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I replaced it per information from Willamette University Marketing Communications informing me that the item there (they called it a logo not a seal) was outdated.
- It seems odd to tell the University they don't know what they are talking about.
- Can I arrange to put you in contact with them to resolve this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old
Never occurred to me to use AWB to remove the template, thanks for raising it at VPT - makes maintenance of this category so much easier. NtheP (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems to be working. Still tedious, but less so.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you undelete the revision you deleted here? It says that it is from 1908, so {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} should apply and it shouldn't be listed as fair use at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, oh, I tried but failed. Not sure how to recover an older version with the same name. Don't know why you would know, but if you know, let me know, if not, I'll find out.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think this worked. Looks like you have taken care of the cleanup. I also downloaded the original, so if there is something wrong, I can re-upload it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- About the copyright status in the source country, I'd say that this either is anonymous or a work by William Anderson (theatre), meaning that it is in the public domain in the source country too. Do you agree with that? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not yet comfortable answering. I've reviewed the US laws in some detail, and recently looked though the Canadian laws for some reason, but I see this poster relates to a performance in Australia, but the file came from a source in Tasmania. If I had to guess, I would guess it is OK, but I'd want to hear from our international experts first. I know if I want to work in Commons, I need more international experience, which I'm gaining slowly, but I'm not there yet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- About the copyright status in the source country, I'd say that this either is anonymous or a work by William Anderson (theatre), meaning that it is in the public domain in the source country too. Do you agree with that? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I think this worked. Looks like you have taken care of the cleanup. I also downloaded the original, so if there is something wrong, I can re-upload it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:World_One_Mumbai.png&curid=30530221&diff=551182031&oldid=551148779 I think something went wrong. Werieth (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, the file is not yet sufficiently small, if I understand the rules correctly, so I wanted it reduced. However, when I went to add the template, I see that I accidentally removed the missing rationale template, so I have restored it.
- I see an attempt at a rationale , but not properly formed.
- Is that what you meant, I hope?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Non-free content "most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels)". I've given a pass to some at 102 and 104 K today, but 116k is pushing it.
- However, Stefan has much more image experience, so I'll defer to him. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the template.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- 100,000 pixels is not always the ideal size. For example, WP:NFCC#3b says that you shouldn't use an entire work, so software icons tend to be uploaded at a reduced size despite the original being less than 100,000 pixels. Also, I wouldn't bother if the file is insignificantly larger. I think that DASHBot (talk · contribs) refused to reduce files smaller than 160,000 pixels, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Another issue
You have sometimes removed {{non-free reduced}} without removing the old revisions. See File:Venus and Serena Official movie Poster.jpg, for example. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Is there an organized way to find such errors?) Like a search for images with more than one version and a Non-free use rationale?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Non-free files with multiple revisions used to be tagged automatically by Fbot (talk · contribs) (so that they appear in one of those maintenance categories after a week), but the bot operator left Wikipedia some time ago. Fbot's tasks were partially taken over by Svenbot (talk · contribs), and I think that the idea was that ContinuityBot (talk · contribs) was meant to take over all of the tasks, although the operator only has filed a BRFA for some of the tasks. Let's see what happens. I've reverted your errors in the cases where the image was on my watchlist, but far from all of the images are on my watchlist. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- I posed a question to the bot operator here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Non-free files with multiple revisions used to be tagged automatically by Fbot (talk · contribs) (so that they appear in one of those maintenance categories after a week), but the bot operator left Wikipedia some time ago. Fbot's tasks were partially taken over by Svenbot (talk · contribs), and I think that the idea was that ContinuityBot (talk · contribs) was meant to take over all of the tasks, although the operator only has filed a BRFA for some of the tasks. Let's see what happens. I've reverted your errors in the cases where the image was on my watchlist, but far from all of the images are on my watchlist. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Reputation Advocate logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Reputation Advocate logo.png. 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 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) 05:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Willamette University Logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading File:Willamette University Logo.PNG. 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 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) 05:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Rather than take it to ANI- A administrator removing a CSD on an article he created.
It involves 2015 Formula One season and this administrator[3]. Yes and I put a warning[4] on his talk page. It never occurred to me till after I did it, that he might be administrator. Still, as an admin. with over 100,000 edits, he should know the CSD rules. Could you please take a look at it?...William 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Timing is a challenge, I'm cleaning up a few things, then headed out of town until Friday. I may get a chance to look at it tomorrow evening but probably not, sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't fully look into this at the moment, but I poked around a little.
Can we hold off on going to ANI until we try talking, and seeing if that works? I think it will. Here is my (possibly incomplete) understanding of the sequence:
- In March 2010 a redirect was deleted. (I think this is unimportant, but the first in the sequence)
- In November 2010 the article was deleted at AfD (as part of a deletion of 20xx for x x=14-20) Generally, because too far into the future. Obviously, that rationale diminishes over time
- On several dates, starting in 2012, and continuing through 2013, it was recreated, and deleted per G4
However, G4 does not apply simply because an article is recreated, it has to be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". I didn't look closely, but I thought Ronhjones, in the edit summary, indicated that new information had been added, so it shouldn't qualify as a G4. (In addition, he alluded to the fact that a deletion decision based upon Crystal eventually should be reconsidered.) After Ron restored it, he and others made improvements to it, so it is no longer eligible for G4.
The main issue, I think, is that Ron removed the tag, without much of an explanation, but I'll also note that you added the tag to an article that was being improved. Looking now at the history, I see that it doesn't look (on the surface) much different at the time you tagged it from the version that was deleted, so I understand why you added the tag. Ron was in the process of improving it, a couple hours later, it was clearly no longer the same article that was deleted, so I think we simply have a bit of a misunderstanding. In a perfect world, Ron might have had the improvements handy, so he could undelete and simultaneously improve, then there would not have been the brief period where it still looked like the old article and arguably eligible for g4.
In retrospect, it would have been better if Ron had left an explanatory note, something like, yes, this appears to be a recreation of a deleted page, but there is new information which is being added, so it is not eligible for G4. In addition, while the page creator is not supposed to remove a CSD, I take Ron's point that he wasn't acting as the creator of a page, he was, as an administrator, restoring a page created by someone else, (then planning on improving it as an editor), so he was not wrong to remove the tag, anyone can other than the creator, and it would be an abuse of technicalities to claim he was the creator.SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the article is at the moment is 4 references all to a GP being held in Thailand in 2015. That's what makes up the article at the moment. Here's the last version edited by Ron[5], the one deleted before he created[6], and the article as it stands now[7]. Ron didn't improve the article, so CSD should still apply. You're going to say that is my opinion but how do you explain WP considers Ron creator because when I CSD who did the notice go to? Ron. Who BTW in this edit summary[8] says create. So he writes create in a edit summary and he's not creating? He's been arguing a technicality but as an administrator he had access to the deleted versions before posting the first of the latest. The article isn't identical but nothing he edited made the article's content different so far as getting around deletion. He should go to ANI but as I expect nothing will get done to him. Two different sets of rules around here....William 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your question prompted me to look closer at the CSD rules, and I came up with three questions, which I posed on the Talk page of CSD --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another issue is Ron is WP:INVOLVED. He took administrator actions on a CSD that he was involved with. I know administrators who won't even rule an AFD snow if 10 editors to none say delete or keep, because they were one of the 10. Which is what they should do....William 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your question prompted me to look closer at the CSD rules, and I came up with three questions, which I posed on the Talk page of CSD --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- All the article is at the moment is 4 references all to a GP being held in Thailand in 2015. That's what makes up the article at the moment. Here's the last version edited by Ron[5], the one deleted before he created[6], and the article as it stands now[7]. Ron didn't improve the article, so CSD should still apply. You're going to say that is my opinion but how do you explain WP considers Ron creator because when I CSD who did the notice go to? Ron. Who BTW in this edit summary[8] says create. So he writes create in a edit summary and he's not creating? He's been arguing a technicality but as an administrator he had access to the deleted versions before posting the first of the latest. The article isn't identical but nothing he edited made the article's content different so far as getting around deletion. He should go to ANI but as I expect nothing will get done to him. Two different sets of rules around here....William 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ruddy Shelducks in TX
Got your note! I am torn between sports, politics, and birds....I know, a crazy combination..Ruddy Shelducks are native to eastern Europe and Asia.......Almost if not entirely impossible to have wild birds in TX...My guess they are escapes from a zoo, collector or game farm...Pvmoutside (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey Sphilbrick; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed a popup box notifying me of your post. I'm not sure I can respond immediately, but I will get to it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You added an OTRS ticket number but no OTRS template. I assume that either {{OTRS permission}} or {{OTRS received}} should be added. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for paying attention, yes, it was resolved, but I failed to use the template. Now fixed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:LexTran logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:LexTran logo.png. 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 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) 04:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)