User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 33

ORTS Backlog

Is there a back log at ORTS, the reason I ask is a number of images I tagged for lacking permission in the last 24 hours have had that permission recived and applied within 24 hrs but File:Photo of Randy Credico, candidate for mayor of New York City.jpeg and File:Sevugan Profile.jpg have not been processed (if an e-mail received) (check the history of each file to see they were tagged). LGA _talk^edits 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a horrendous backlog at OTRS, as well as at Copyright problems, where I am working at the moment. The OTRS permissons backlog is 693 tickets and seems to have some tickets as old as 58 days that haven't been touched. I'll take a look at the ones you mention now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Searching works well for some types of things but not others. I saw the tag was added 19 Feb, so I assumed you expected an email around that date. I looked at all emails sent to Permissions between 18 and 23 February and did not see one related to that image. Do you have reason to think one was sent?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:OTRS pending moves images to a different category if permission hasn't been added after a month. Similarly, Commons:Template:OTRS pending transcludes Commons:Template:No permission since if one month has passed without permission being added. If the backlog is longer than one month, it looks bad to delete after one month. At the very least, I think that you should extend one month to two months or even longer if there may be unprocessed e-mails of that age. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to think it was sent for either file, they were both created with the tag, I assume so that they would avoid deletion as long as possible. LGA _talk^edits 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@Stefan I started to write a long exposition, but the short answer - maybe, but we are working on some things, let's see if we can get them to work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@LGA. That's interesting but troubling. Of course, we need to get our act together, but I'm not happy to hear that some are gaming the system. That tag should be used when someone uploads an image from someone else, and they promise they will send in the permission, but they might not get to it for a day or two.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see some dubious {{OTRS pending}} tags once in a while when checking new uploads. If the file is on my watchlist, I often see someone tagging {{subst:npd}} or {{puf}} after a month or two. I don't know if people are gaming the system or if they simply don't understand how it works or what {{OTRS pending}} means. Similarly, I very often find people claiming own work although it obviously isn't own work, and sometimes other information on the page indicates that the uploader doesn't know what "own work" means. I believe that Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard has options or checkboxes to tag as own work or as {{OTRS pending}}, and the problem might sometimes be that people using that wizard simply don't know when they should use those options. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that someone can check an option which probably adds that template. I'll AGF. The main problem is cleaning up the backlog, and other issues will disappear.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Another example is File:Guy Boutilier 2.jpg, the file was uploaded with ORTS tag on and there is nothing to say it has been provided the CSD tag has now been removed and this potential copyvio file will continue to be displayed. I understand that ORTS is a staffed by volunteers and I am not having a go at them, but I do think that taged images should be deleted after the seven days and then restored if an e-mail is later discovered, I am seeing more and more gaming of the system. LGA _talk^edits 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If files are deleted, then I would suspect that many of the uploaders will e-mail OTRS, asking what's going on and why the permission hasn't been processed. As a result, there will be more OTRS mails, meaning a larger backlog. This doesn't seem ideal. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@LGA I left a note for the uploader, but I agree, we may have to revisit the process. (@Stefan, a second email is less onerous than it might appear. While not ideal, if I see an email from someone mentioning that it is a follow up, it is easy to find the prior email, and merge the two. That process is actually easier than finding someone thing in the first place. Of course, it would be better if we could catch up, then if we see such a tag, we can be sure it isn't hidden in the mass of backlog.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The en wiki backlog (67) is not as big as Commons (445) and that was an en wiki image, so I reviewed all the open images, and did not find permission, so I will delete.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why I say administrators protect their own

A administrator won't do anything against obvious vandalism and then no administrator wants to talk about it.[1] Users can freely blank a user a user page three times, twice after warnings, and nothing happens....William

We have a well-established process that we often issue warnings, as you well know, because sometimes users do things by accident. Admins have some discretion, so if they think the user knows, or have other reason to block, they can. In this case, (I haven't traced the details, just reading the statements) a warning was given, another incident occurred, and a final warning was given, then no more problems. Isn't that the point of a final warning? I would be more upset if someone issued a final warning, then changed their mind and blocked anyway. What you have outlined is an example of process as it is supposed to be followed. What would you have done differently? Block earlier? Might have been justified, but your argument appears to be that it is required. Either cite the policy that a user has to be blocked earlier in the sequence of warnings, or propose a change to policy.

You are complaining that someone didn't follow YOUR idea of what policy should be, even though they followed policy. Can you understand how unreasonable your expectations are?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not unreasonable, two warnings were issued and he did it a 3rd time(AFTER blanking the warnings. Blanking a talk page announcement is considered recognition you received it) via his IP and Toddst1 did nothing. Why then can't a editor who gets blocked for vandalism on the same amount of warnings or less get a unblock? Editors have gotten blocked without warning, and with one or two warnings first. Krtisijh had two when his IP did the 3rd blanking. The facts are clear, and so is the fact that administrators don't want to address the failures of other administrators....William 17:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The facts ARE clear. We don't have a rigid rule that someone gets blocked after exactly doing X. Admins are given some discretion. There is no indication that this discretion was abused. Please stop wasting my time. If you identify actual admin abuse, I will look into it, but this is absurd. Someone did something wrong, they were warned, they stopped. And you want someone punished.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Discourse on Unified Field reconciled with General Relativity

Thank you for your time and review. I have complied with external copyright policies and the blog has a header link, and the posts have the wiki copyright notice added. Please update me on my talk page if any more issues are needed to be resolved. Regards, --Jeffrey mcmahan (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As you noted on the submission itself "Well, I guess this may classify as original research", it is original research, so not suitable until published in a recognized journal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have looked at wikisource and wikiuniversity, would you know if I would run into the same issue at those two article space? If so, please advise on my talk, otherwise I'll take a closer look at the guidelines before rushing ahead. RegardsJeffrey mcmahan (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have zero experience with either of those projects, so I am not the best person to ask.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So, thank you for your advice and direction, I have not been all that active on wiki-p as yet, but will attempt to learn what is proper content for the project. I have got my manu published both on my private site and the blog that is on it and will be trying to get reviews from others by becoming active in forums that have individuals that will be properly educated and hopefully active in the field of physics. My purpose here today is to ask if I could put a short notice concerning the write up of mine on to the; 'theory of everything' article space. Perhaps nothing so gauche as a link saying, 'go and read' but just a announcement that a manuscript concerning the topic has been written, graphically modeled, with an attempt at a mathmatical explanation put forth. Any thoughts would be admirably regarded. Cheers; Jeffrey mcmahan (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not recommended. Everyday, someone wants to add a link in some article to their blog about the subject. Blogs and private sites do not generally qualify as reliable sources. The goal of the encyclopedia is to document what is covered in reliable sources, not to be a resource for new discoveries. Sorry.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, I think I'll be looking into the reviewing of new articles section and see if I can help out with that for awhile. Cheers. Jeffrey mcmahan (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:P2PU LOGO Medium RGB-01 low res.png)

Thanks for uploading File:P2PU LOGO Medium RGB-01 low res.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 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) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Sphilbrick; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Drm310's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Drm310 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I could use your help

There's an ANI discussion[2] about a block placed on an editor for abusing multiple accounts that I think was done wrongly and I'm trying to convince(in a nice fashion) the blocking administrator that the grounds for the block is wrong....William 16:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading now.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Message added 18:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wheel warring

Unblocking when multiple admins have stated that the block should not be undone is really, really a bad idea. Please restore the block until there is consensus to lift it.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, things are moving too fast. Dennis blocked, I conversed with Dennis, who said I could unblock.

I unblocked before seeing that any other admins believe the block is valid.

Let's see if you can explain to me why the block is valid, it won't hurt if the editor is unblocked for a few minutes while we sort this out.

BTW, your heading is wrong. I haven't wheel warred.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason the editor is logging out is to make it difficult to detect that it is him that is removing the PRODs. It doesn't matter that he would have been allowed to, what matters is that he is taking actions to prevent it from being detected. That's "avoiding scrutiny", which violates WP:ILLEGIT. You haven't violated the wheel warring policy at this point, that's true, but that doesn't mean you aren't tugging one direction when you should have been aware that the block had support.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all other than not putting an edit summary of telling why he removed the PRODS, durneydiaz didn't do anything remotely wrong to earn this block. The PRODS were wrong and I said exactly why over at ANI. If I'd discovered the PRODS, I would have taken them down. Another editor has already done so. The block was for abusing multiple accounts, but this isn't abuse and I don't see how editing while not signed isn't abuse either. Try AGF. and not thinking IP use is automatically suspect. If this editor wanted to avoid scrutiny, wouldn't creating a 2nd account have been the way to go instead of using his IP that is so obviously connected to his main account. Think about it.

BTW Sp, thanks for the help. I put a message to Durneydiaz below yours suggesting he follow your advice and also telling him I'd work with him in the future if any articles of his get prodded. Lets see if he listens....William 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope I can take you up on that offer. I made the unblock, and posted some warnings on the talk page, so Ihave some responsibility to monitor, but I also have a ton of backlogs at OTRS and Copyright problems, so cannot take on mentoring to any major degree. I think the editor can contribute positively, so anything you can do to help keep the editor editing productively would be great.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Coins

Hi, hows it going? I was just wondering what is the update on the Sri Lankan coins, ticket # 2013030310003121, from a couple of weeks back?--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright owner declined the required permission statement. I wrote with several options, but have not heard back. I can't share his email with you, but I can tell you my suggestions. I can either try a follow up, or you could try. Which do you think is more effective?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't really want to disturb him too much. But can you tell me what the options were, and what options we have to keep these and future images on wikipedia?--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an email.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ill get back to you soon. Bit busy these days.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Durneydiaz Unblocked

Why unblock Durneydiaz? He/She was only blocked for a week, which is more than generous considering what appears to be sockpuppetry. Uberaccount (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that some editors have been PRODing articles written by that editor, and a PROD can be deleted if not removed in a week, I thought a week block, which effectively makes it impossible to unprod, ought to be a solid block. Notice for example, that Claudio Pérez was prodded shortly before the block. While someone else stepped in, if they hadn't then Durneydiaz would have effectively been prevented from contesting the prod. Lucas Volken is nominated for AfD shortly after the block, which means the editor cannot contribute to the discussion until the last few hours before deletion.

Of course, one must be careful not to extend this argument too far, as it would be silly to suggest that no block should ever exceed a week, on the chance that they might want to contest a deletion, but I did notice the time.

As for socking, you aren't the only one who sees it as socking, but I'm still not seeing it. Socking implies an intent to deceive. If we had a rule that anyone could remove a prod except the original editor, then it would have been deceptive, but that's not the rule. We have rules against disruptive editing, but we normally warn first. I don't see any evidence that the editor knew what they were doing was wrong.

I reviewed the last year of posts on the editor's talk page. Not a single warning that they shouldn't remove prod messages. In the case of outright vandals, we often posts multiple warnings. Surely someone trying to add real content, however, poorly sourced, deserves more consideration than a vandal.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason for suspicion of sockpuppetry is that the PROD tags were pretty much all removed by the same IP address. Therefore, there is a good reason that warnings were not given. If this actually is his/her IP address removing the PROD tags, there does seem to be an intent to decieve. Uberaccount (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt for a second that it is the same editor. However, I am not successfully explaining why I think the block is wrong. We want to block editors when they are violating policy and they know they are violating policy. Let me try to explain with an analogy. In real life, if you were having an argument with someone and you said the sky was blue. They say it is green, you respond that it is blue, they insist it is green, and you might repeat that it is blue. A perfectly ordinary discussion in real life. Suppose a new editor does the same thing in Wikipedia. Happens every day. On the third time they say the sky is blue, we warn them that we have a rule against reverting a third time, even if you are right. That surprises some editors, but it is a rule. We never (I hope) block them the first time they do it. While it is against policy, it isn't an obvious policy, like don't vandalize. So we make them aware that what they are doing is wrong, and if they still continue, we block.

In this case, the editor removed a template while logged out. Sure, WE know why this is not allowed, but are we absolutely certain that the editor knows this is contrary to policy? I don't see a single warning in the last year. Al I suggest is that we tell the editor clearly that they can't do it, and if they persist we will block,. I don't quite get why some are insisting we should block for a violation of policy with no evidence that the editor knows the policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Phil, you wrote User_talk:Durneydiaz#I am trying to help get you unblocked, please respond. As far as I can see, they never responded. So what makes you think they're done disrupting the encyclopaedia? 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

They haven't posted since then either, so it's a little early to conclude anything. BTW, do I know you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you know me is irrelevant, my use of an IP is not against any policies (not blocked or anything), and I wish to edit as an IP for now.

Regards this issue, I don't think it is appropriate to ask a serial-problem-maker to respond and then to unblock them without receiving a response. I was passing your talk page, noticed this, and wanted to make that point. I'm currently engaged in another debate, where a similar question arose. I believe that policy/guidelines say, we should get at least some evidence that a user understands the reason for their block, and acknowledges that, before unblocking. If you are interested in seeing the similar case, it's here.

Example: if a user is disruptive and creates 10 articles that need deleting, that typically takes 1 minute of 10 other users time to tag them, another few minutes of other users time to deal with the tags and admins to delete. Further time to issue warnings, further time to block. It adds up to hours of time that we could all use more productively. That's why I think it's worth a few minutes to try and see if a user can make useful additions, by waiting for a response that demonstrates a degree of competence and understanding, before wasting hours dealing with unproductive editors. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't challenging your use of an IP address. I haven't ever, and hope not to. However, said something about me I hadn't thought I had revealed in Wikipedia, although I have to some real life friends, so I was curious.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked Durneydiaz to respond. I took care not to make it a condition for unblocking. I understand that some editors feel a blocked user should explain why they were blocked before getting unblocked. That position isn't one I've espoused. I understand the rationale, and I'm still mulling over whether I think it is good policy. However, that presumes a valid block. Can I get you to agree if someone was blocked incorrectly, it would be a rather weird policy that they should explain what rule they broke, if they didn't break one. That's an extreme, and this situation doesn't quite match the extreme, but the editor was blocked for socking, and I think there is an arguable case that editing with your IP address isn't socking. For example, if you have ever had an account, I suspect you would be unhappy if I blocked you now for socking. If you read that as a threat, you've missed the point. The point is, I believe the cases an editor can get blocked without fair warning are rare, and I didn't think this qualified. I'm trying to choose my words carefully–I said "fair warning" because after the fact I found a warning, more than a year old. I prefer more recent warnings, but maybe I'm soft.

I posted the above before looking at your link to a similar case. I don't see the reason for the block listed, so I simply don't know whether the situations are similar.

I agree with your example of a user that is disruptive and creates articles requiring deletion. That wastes time. Do you think the editor deserves a block without warning, for something unrelated to the article creation?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, this is effectively a moot point, but according to his/her block log, it appears that he/she has been blocked before. Uberaccount (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was aware that the editor had been blocked before, but assuming you didn't wish to post some random fact, so what? If a user has been blocked for violating policy X, can that block log be used to justify blocking them for a violation of Policy Y, if they did not violate Policy Y? I trust the answer is so obviously "no" that I must be misunderstanding your point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given for one of the blocks was removing deletion templates, which I believe was valid in considering this block. However, I will defer to your judgement. Uberaccount (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that you have had to bear some of the burden of what the editor has done, so I don't want to appear unsympathetic. I do recognize that some editors are net negative contributors to the project, because they might create a tiny number of stubs, but create work for others, that is directed away from productive editing. I have no problem letting them know they must figure out how to be productive, or we will show them the door. Yet I also think we should give people, and when there are signs that the editor wants to contribute, we should bend over backwards to make sure we aren't being unreasonable. Yes, the editor was blocked for removing templates in violation of policy 17 months ago. I didn't view that as adequate reason to block someone for the removal of templates that were not removed in violation of policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My judgement was a close call, and I don't fault anyone who could see it differently. Frankly, I wish the editor would post something, so we would have a clearer view of next steps. But now I'm off on a two day business trip, with limited access to internet, so any delay in response should not be mistaken for indifference.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Can I get you to agree if someone was blocked incorrectly, it would be a rather weird policy that they should explain what rule they broke, if they didn't break one". Hahaha, stunning irony, because I'm incorrectly blocked right now; I've broken no rules, so I do not know how I can appeal. Have a nice trip; I hope this is all sorted out before your return. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Posted by me at the IP's request; the he wrote this at his talk page and asked for someone to copy it over here. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Update - I've been unblocked, after discussion on AN [3]. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, see today Uberaccount (talk) appears to have come straight into en.wp adding prod tags - many of them bad prods - and deleting messages from experienced editors on his/her Talk page to slow down. Very familiar with the tools, but not with notability criteria. Based on your familiarity above, could you perhaps have a word if this continues? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Words supplied.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Dear Sphilbrick,

Thanks so much for all your hard work in removing non-free content from Wikipedia. I know it's a tedious and largely thankless task, so I just wanted to know that your efforts have not gone unnoticed or unappreciated.

—Psychonaut (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I wish we could find a way to convince some others to pitch in, but it is really hard making it sound enticing. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Dodger67's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roger (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ticket 2013031510011715

Hi. You marked File:Ray Burggraf installing new work.jpg (among others) as permission received under ticket 2013031510011715. Does that apply to File:Ray L. Burggraf, August 3, 2012.jpg as well? --B (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the list. However, the list covered quite a number of images, and it is possible that one was simply omitted, or may have been referred to by another name.

I sent an email, asking for clarification.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On a positive note, I already have a response. However, while not at liberty to discuss specifics, the issue is on hold for the moment. There will be a more definitive answer, but at the moment, I do not know when. My guess is a day or three.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --B (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Susan Banks

Susan Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You forgot to erase two more revisions. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC) One here and one there. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 30

Hi, did you have a chance to look at the other pages listed here? There's been an edit war, but when I looked at the text, there appears to be a copyright violation in the current version. I think the couple of articles listed needs an administrator to look at the situation. Pkeets (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? There are several items listed there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The articles in question are Liana Alexandra and Şerban Nichifor. I put the template on Alexandra's page, and another interested party has also put forth the Nichifor article as a copyright violation. I thought the current version of Alexandra's article was too closely paraphrased from the source listed. There are earlier versions that could be used instead, but the edit war stands in the way of their use. Pkeets (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't do anything right now, will try to look this evening.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I am missing something. I don't see any of the text (beyond "grove music online") at the site listed. What am I missing?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The copyright infringement is on the Grove article. One of the interested parties in the dispute has posted the original Grove text in the complaint. Follow the link in the section header above to compare it to the text currently in the article history. I haven't looked closely at the Nichifor article, but the complaint is similar. Again, there are older versions of the Alexandra article that I don't think are infringements, even though they use Grove as a source, but use of these has apparently been blocked by the edit war. Does that help? Pkeets (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what Grove article? I see two articles mentioned, neither one called Grove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I get that Grove refers to Julie Anne Sadie; Rhian Samuel (1994). The New Grove Dictionary of Women Composers. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-0-393-03487-5. Retrieved 22 March 2013., not to a Wikipedia article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. There is also an online Grove Dictionary at the link posted in the copyright template, but you have to have a subscription to view the articles using this link, which makes it difficult to use in evaluation. Newconsonance posted a copy of the Grove article which seems to have been infringed on the Copyright Problem page for easy comparison against the article. A similar situation apparently exists with the Şerban Nichifor article just below Liana Alexandra. Because of the edit war related to the most current versions, these articles need the attention of an administrator. Pkeets (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the Talk page? I found an accessible version of Grove, but it doesn't match what was posted on the copyright page, or in the article. Can you shed any light on this?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? The page is currently protected against vandalism in removing the copyright notice until April 2. Pkeets (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: copyright problems

Hi Sphilbrick, per your suggestion I copied my report at ANI to the copyright noticeboard. I've read that my comments on this matter have been characterized as snarky, hostile, and abrasive. Yet I've toned them down; had the editor in question made similarly persistent copyright violations to articles in my field of scholarship I would have been furious. A handful of such edits could be viewed as anomalous errors; it's another matter when viewing dozens over the course of almost two months. The edits diminish the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia, and create extra work for others. Abrasive? Perhaps. But mostly angry, and disappointed, that scholarship and plagiarism are so easily blended, and that we may treat such instances gingerly for fear of upsetting relationships with academic institutions. Rhetorically, do the Wikipedia tutorials offered to universities and museums cover copyright guidelines? I'm sorry, but it astounds me that such issues need to be formally addressed, like reminding adults that it's not polite to steal. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I contributed to that impression. My interest was in staving off a potential loss of an editor, so apologies if I went too far in the other direction. I did not mention names, and simply accepted Ellies characterizations. I strongly agree with you that many people are unaware of copyright issues, but as an area I work in every day, I've lost my initial astonishment at this fact. There is much to do, one thing you hinted at—if we have canned presentations on how to edit, do they include basics of copyright? I think they should.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I follow you, though I'm less concerned about losing the editor; if our need for literary talent/content expansion is so great that we're concerned about alienating users who plagiarize.... Suffice to say that given the scope of copying--despite the user's constructive contributions--I'm less charitably inclined. Best, 99.136.255.134 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your view, and as someone who has spent quite a number of hours cleaning up as copyright violations, I can say emphatically that we don't need editors who fail to follow our copyright rules. But while your point is well-taken that people should know better, many do not. I had a recent exchange with someone who was sure the image they used in an article was OK, because they found it in a Google image search. Some simply don't know, and there are a number of examples of editors who have turned into fine editors, after they have become fully apprised of our copyright rules. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. I'm not familiar with the image guidelines, which is ironic, given my background in visual matters; in general, my policy is if in doubt, don't. And I appreciate your thoughts re: editors who've improved their contributions. I'd be delighted if the user in question experiences a similar transition. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So will I. I applaud your policy my policy is if in doubt, don't.. Unfortunately, many follow Wikipedia:Bold a little too literally for my taste.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been through and checked/edited the problematic articles where I have added information, so I hope everything looks OK now. Thanks for your help EllieBywater (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There may remain passages to be attended to. I've removed further apparent copyright violations here [4], here [5], and here [6]. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, I will try to look into this later (possibly not today), however, I had a system failure this morning, just now resolved, but now badly behind schedule on several things. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)