User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 89

Archive 85

←

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

→

Archive 95

Wireless Home Digital Interface

I saw you reverted my latest updates to WHDI. The changes were made as of latest questions we got regarding this Standard. any issue with these changes? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wireless_Home_Digital_Interface&action=history uri 212.29.198.157 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary:

Copyright issue re https://www.avenview.com/av-extenders-wireless-extenders-c-1261_1273.html

Do you think that is in error?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

the link you are referring to was copied from WHDI and Amimon website. It also copied from wirelessHD old website, two completely different standard, and as far as I can see the product advertised there are using a 3rd technology and not using either of these. so I don't see here any copyright issue.

Uri. 212.29.198.157 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the material was copied from and show me that it is appropriately licensed? If I understand your point, you are asserting that the source of the information was something other than the link I provided, which may be the case, but I need to see evidence that the material was either originally written by you, or if copied, came from a freely licensed source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually wrote the material myself. I am working at Amimon for the last 12 years, the company that established WHDI. The text you are referring to, was most probably written by me many years ago, and has been copied since to multiple other sites that are using WHDI technology. As I am totally new to Wiki editing, I have two questions: 1. how can I see the text that I wrote that you reverted? 2. how can I edit this talk page in visual editing and not in source editing? Thanks! Uri. 212.29.198.157 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It might seem obvious that if an individual is an author of some words, that individual ought to be able to use those words in a Wikipedia article without any problems. However, there are three reasons it isn't as simple as it sounds.

The first issue is the identification of the individual. It might be the case that some individual has written some words, that we have a user with the same name. Iin most cases we will allow any user to choose just about any name without requiring proof that the name is the real name. We don't even require real names. In the case of an individual using a real name, we generally don't take any steps to ensure that it is their real name except in the case where the individual wants to use real name which is famous (roughly speaking, has an entry in Wikipedia in that name), in which case we do need to take some steps to ensure that name used matches the real name of the user.

A second issue, and this is typically the most important issue, is that the original author of the words might be the copyright holder at the time they were written, but it is quite common for the copyright license to be transferred to another individual or organization. If the words are written on commission, this may happen automatically and simultaneously. Whenever someone writes something that ends up being the official statement of an organization, such as the "about us" section or something similar, it is almost always the case the organization has arranged for the transfer of copyright from the original author to the organization itself. It is often the case that someone writes something for publication either in a general magazine or academic journal. In many of those cases the acceptance of the work includes the transfer of the copyright. While this does not happen in 100% of cases, it is common enough that we have to operate as if it might have happened, and ask for confirmation from the website holder or the journal or the magazine or wherever the words appear that the copyright is retained by the original author. It can happen but it's rare. In either case, to reuse the words in a Wikipedia article requires the explicit licensing of the material from the copyright holder and this is very often not going to happen, because the required license agreement is rather broad.

The third issue is not quite a copyright problem. Words written in Wikipedia have to conform to a neutral point of view, and it is quite common that words written for other venues have a different tone. It may not be that they are wrong or inaccurate, but the text is typically supportive of an organization or an idea, and may not be as balanced and neutral as is appropriate for Wikipedia. In the case that someone wrote the words for a website or in connection with some idea, the author probably needs to review our conflict of interest guideline, which sets out some requirements for editing in the situation. In many cases it may prohibit such editing, but at a minimum, it will require some declaration of the existence of a conflict of interest and possibly the existence of a paid editing situation.

I tried to write this generically. We can now further discuss to what extent any of these issues apply to you specifically.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the full explanation. Much clearer now. I wasn't aware to the COI issue, and now I am. I am as mentioned above in COI to WHDI, being employed by a company that is involved in the standard. I did however from the beginning, updated the text in objective way to my understanding. I believe that all the text can be found on WHDI organization website anyway so no copyright issue. How should we continue with it? thanks, Uri.212.29.198.157 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

K-State photos

Well, it looks like I'm going to have to contact K-State Athletics again 😔 How hard is it to just reply if they OK it (at least that's what it seemed like) in a previous email?! Lol Sometimes those people frustrate me! Corky 19:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: I'm not 100% certain I'm following your point so make a couple general comments and you can let me know if I'm missing something.

I consider it acceptable for an editor to fill out a Declaration of consent, Have the copyright holder respond that the wording in the declaration of consent is acceptable and file that with OTRS. Some OTRS agents take a more stringent approach, and are wary of forwarded emails so they would prefer that the copyright holder send the information directly to OTRS.

I would be concerned if a copyright holder made reference to a separate email stating something was okay, which might require the OTRS agent to review some of the document which may or may not be easily available.

I apologize if I'm not fully responsive — I recall we discussed this issue sometime ago but I don't remember all the specifics.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My frustration was at the K-State Athletics people, not the OTRS agent(s)! I was assuming that K-State did not reply back to the email for a formal statement, which resulted in the deletion of the photos? Don't get me wrong, I definitely understand the reasoning as to why it would be better for the copyright holder to contact directly, but sometimes we're lucky if we get one response from them! Corky 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: There are two possible issues. One is that OTRS permissions is badly backlogged. I just started chipping away at it but I've been concentrating on a different queue. If you can tell me more about the images in question I can look to see if they responded and OTRS simply got around to processing them. If we get lucky, it will be that simple and I can restore the images and process the permission. The other option is that case state hasn't sent in the permission, and people monitoring the photos will wait some time for OTRS to clear but not forever, so they may have deleted them because they haven't seen the OTRS template on the image.

If that's the case, I'll be happy to write to case state and see if I have better luck. I think I've had some success with K state — if my recollection is correct, reach out to the my contact and see what happens. Even if my recollection is incorrect I'll be happy to try writing to see if I can get this moved along. Tell me more about the images. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The images were for Bill Snyder, Brad Hill, Bruce Weber, Jeff Mittie, and Gene Taylor. They were the headshots taken from the KStateSports.com website. Jcb deleted them as "No OTRS permission for 30 days"... all file names were uploaded as "FirstName LastName.jpg" (i.e. File:Bruce Weber.jpg). Kenny Lannou, the Sports Information Director for K-State, is the one that I was in contact with. I'm going to see if I can get ahold of him again and see if he would be willing to give a more formal statement (and possibly send it directly himself).

Speedy deletion of Harvey Rosten page

Hi, thanks for feedback, still getting to grips with Wikipedia, i'd really appreciate it if this can be moved from speedy deletion to a category that i can still spend time working on and editing this page. I didnt expect this to get accepted when i submitted i was just looking for some feedback. Thanks.

@Kristinalaw: I tend to mark an article as a CSD candidate when I identify a copyright issue with a substantial portion of the article and it is either difficult to remove the problematic text, or the removal of the text would leave something far short of an acceptable article. Some other editors who review such nominations are often willing to take the time to perform the steps and that happened in this case. Another editor felt that the material could be removed while still leaving an acceptable article so it is not currently in danger of deletion. If you would prefer to have it in draft space so that you could work on it in relative peace, I can move it there but if your immediate concern was that it was going to be deleted that issue is now moot.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick Hi again! ok - so my understanding based on this is i can still work on it without moving it to draft space because another editor has deemed removing the copy-written material would still leave substantial information to justify an article. is this correct? if not then moving to draft space would be fantastic thank you.

@Kristinalaw: You are correct. It is not necessary to move it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Beebuk

Hi, S Philbrick! Just wanted to see if you're back in the pink. You seem to be. All good wishes to you. Beebuk 14:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I am feeling much better. Visiting and playing with my grandson, which is alsways good. Thanks for asking.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wiki Loves Food

Curd Rice

Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hedvig Hricak

Do you have any time to spare to take a look at my proposal for restoring Hricak's article? I saw that you were involved in reverting some of the offending changes, but I think the state of the article is still lacking compared to even earlier versions. If you can't spare the time, could you advise me on whether or not this is a suitable issue to bring over to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV? I've never dealt with a situation like this so I just want to make sure I go through the proper channels. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@FacultiesIntact: I took a look at the proposal and, while I did not go through in great detail, it looks fine to me. I don't think it's something for ANI, and not for AIV unless vandalism is ongoing. Make sure you've made clear about your proposal on the article talk page, give it some time for editors to weigh in and if there's no objection, go for it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Corporate finance

Hello, thanks for noting the issue with my recent edit to corporate law. I had attempted to correct some of the errors in the page, in doing so, copied the description of M&A from the introduction of the Mergers and Acquisitions page to try and make clear. However, I would suggest my other edits, which had to do with the formatting and substantial clarity of the article - did not violate any copyright. Can you provide reasoning for having undone all the edits other than the copyright breach, as it took a great deal of time to coordinate and would need to be redone without any shorthand found in the view history tab of the article? Thanks in advanced for this and for the sharp eye on the violation.

BNClawyer32 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@BNClawyer32:Sorry about that, when I made the edit I wondered if I would hear from you. The process for addressing copyright issues is to use the rollback feature. The nature of that feature is that it reverts the article to the state it was before the editors edits and undoes all contiguous edits. In roughly 99% of all cases, the other edits are either also problematic, or may be minor editing of the problematic text. In rare cases such as yours, it may pick up some edits that are not problematic. I was going to suggest that I revert to the version after your edits and asked that you remove the problematic material which I could then rev Dell but it looks like you've already restored the nonproblematic material.

I also see in your edit summary that the material in question matches material on a Wikipedia page. Do you know which came first? If a site copies material from a Wikipedia page, our copyrighted action software sometimes picks up the copying and misses that it originally came from a Wikipedia article. It is permissible to copy from the Wikipedia article, although it must be done in a particular way to properly provide attribution.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Hello! Thanks so much for responding and explaining this to me - being rather new I appreciate the time to assist. Not sure which one came first.. I imagine that the company website was first and someone added the text to the M&A article. (The talk page there indicates that there has been some previous revamping and clarifications so i imagine someone must have added it without regard to the previous copyrighted content. I've left the other content out, and will simply just write a new descriptor for M&A within the topic. I think I figured out how to correct the content without including the copyright material. Thanks again!! -- BNClawyer32 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@BNClawyer32:In retrospect, I wish I had handled this one differently. We get notifications of hundreds of potential copyright violations every week, and frankly, it is easy to slide into "auto" mode — confirming that a substantial portion of the text does match text on a site subject to full copyright and do the rollback. Well over 95% of the time, this is the right course of action. Most of these edits are by people who don't yet understand our stringent rules on copyright and I almost never hear from any of the editors. While it is not unusual for there to be several consecutive edits from the same editor, in most cases the other edits are minor cosmetic cleanup of the text so it is best to do the rollback and and undo everything. As I mentioned, I had a vague feeling that that would not be the case with your edit but I was on a roll and completed it before fully thinking through alternatives. I'm going to rethink my approach, and see if there's a better way of handling these sorts of situations. (FYI, no need to ping me on my page I get an automatic notification of edits to my page. I need to ping you because I don't know that you will be automatically watching my page.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I am just really appreciative of how invested in keeping Wiki working well you are! Completely understand the reasoning for rolling it back - and it was entirely justified considering - I will also make note to make less multiple edits - I have the habit of doing so when i've looked back and realised a error... I reckon the approach is probably appropriate if 95% of the time the result is not a genuine change/edit. (Thanks for the information on the ping'ing, I did it because I wasn't sure!) -- BNClawyer32 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica's logo and page preview

File:Sport Lisboa e Benfica Logo Reduced res.png does not appear in Wikipedia's page preview. Any idea on how to fix that? SLBedit (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I see it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I still can't see it. SLBedit (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLBedit: Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. You are making an edit to an article containing the image, presumably S.L. Benfica, and when you click on "preview", you don't see the image. Is this correct? If so, are you doing this in desktop or mobile view? In my earlier response, when I said I could see it, I was in desktop view. I just tried it in the mobile view (on a desktop) and I'm still having no problem seeing the image. If you are still having a problem we have to track down exactly the circumstances causing the problem because it's not a problem in all situations.

I'm talking about Page previews ("Get quick previews of a topic while reading a page"), which can be enabled under Preferences - Reading preferences - Page previews. I don't see the logo when I hover the mouse over a link to S.L. Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@SLBedit: When I hover my mouse over this link S.L. Benfica, I see the image.

In my preferences, I enabled Navigation popups. I think that was around long before page previews so one possibility is that the implementation is different. (As an aside, I don't see "reading preferences" as an option in my preferences.) Unfortunately, it appears this is beyond my technical expertise so I urge you to follow up at WP:VPT.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Preferences - Appearance - Reading preferences

Yes, with 'Navivation popups' enabled, the images appears, however, with a really small size in comparison with Page preview. SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Empire page

Hello!

About the copyright issue; I haven't seen that page nor website, Although I did took the information from the Ajuran sultanate page directly. It seems that it is the other way around, i.e. the website copy pasted the info from the respective Wikipedia articles.

Kind regards 84.81.77.172 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your explanation sounds quite plausible — it is, unfortunately, common for websites to copy material from Wikipedia and not just failed to attribute it but to assert copyright over it.

However, hile you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Adding this note in the edit summary achieves a dual-purpose. First, it complies with our internal rules for attribution, and second, provides a heads up to editors looking for copyright violation that this copying is permissible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've provided the attribution in the edit summary. 84.81.77.172 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Petticoat Junction

Just spent much time and trouble updating this page only to have it all deleted for no logical reason -- some nonsense about a copyright issue that doesn't exist as far as I can see. The update info was taken from my writing on another Wiki page, in fact. So, I stole from myself. How is that repurposed text a copyright issue. This sort of arbitrary knee-jerk deletion problem is why I gave up on contributing to this site on a regular basis. I would appreciate it if my changes were reinstated as there if nothing wrong with them. -- Ghost2011 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ghost2011: I fully understand you aren't happy to find your edit reverted. However, I find it a bit ironic that you accuse me of kneejerk behavior without any attempt to find out the rationale, which is the very definition of kneejerk.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Be that as it may, still have not heard the reason, logical or otherwise, for tossing out the revision, which greatly enhanced and clarified a very sketchy and incomplete section. -- Ghost2011 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a copyright issue, even if you are the original author. Wikipedia takes copyright seriosly - it isn't nonsense. More to follow, as I am crafting a general, relevant post. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I written a proposal to help forestall similar situation in the future. See here. I also urge you to read Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia which outlines the best practices that would have prevented the problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Help us design granular blocks!

Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T190350

We have a first draft of how we think this tool should work. You can read the full proposed implementation here but here are the significant parts:

• Granular blocks (page, category, namespace, and file uploading) will be built on top of Special:Block. These blocks will function as if they were regular blocks and allow for the same options, but only take effect on specific pages.
• We will add a new checkbox for "Block this user from the whole site" which will be checked by default. When it is unchecked the admin will be able to specify which pages, categories, and/or namespaces the user should be blocked from editing.
• Granular blocks can be combined and/or overlap. (For example, a user could be simultaneously blocked from editing the articles Rain, Thunder, Lightning, and all pages inside the Category:Weather.)
• Only one block is set at a time, to adjust what the user is blocked from the administrator would have to modify the existing block.
• Block logs should display information about the granular block
• When a blocked user attempts to edit an applicable page, they should see a block warning message which include information on their block (reason, expiration, what they are blocked from, etc.)
• If a category is provided, the blocked user cannot edit either the category page itself and all pages within the category.
• If the File: namespace is blocked, the user should not be allowed to upload files.

We like this direction because it builds on top of the existing block system, both a technical and usability wise. Before we get too far along with designs and development we'd like to hear from you about our prosposal:

1. What do you think of the proposed implementation?
2. We believe this should be an expansion of Special:Block, but it has been suggested that this be a new special page. What are your thoughts?
3. Should uploading files be combined with a File namespace block, or as a separate option? (For example, if combined, when a user is blocked from the File namespace, they would neither be able to edit any existing pages in the File namespace nor upload new files.)
4. Should there be a maximum number of things to be blocked from? Or should we leave it up to admin discretion?

We appreciate your feedback on this project's talk page or by email. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!

Roses are red,
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

.

Deletion of Thornbury Town FC

Hi there,

Just wanted to query the speedy deletion of Thornbury Town FC. The History section is taken from the club history distributed to clubs for inclusion in matchday programmes. This document isn't copyrighted.

Could you restore the page if possible? Or even make it available for me to move into my sandbox.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomshorey (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tomshorey: The material may have been distributed for inclusion but unless it has been explicitly, freely licensed, it cannot be used in Wikipedia. I look for, but did not see any evidence that an explicit license had been provided. If you can pointed out to me, and it is one of the acceptable licenses, I'll be happy to restore the material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Fair enough. That might take a bit of time as the league's website guys aren't the fastest. Would it be possible to restore the page with the history section removed? The Honours section took me quite some time to type out.--User:TomShorey

@Tomshorey:If you enable your email and preferences (let me know if you don't see how to do this) I can email you a copy. For future use, consider composing edits and an off-line editor which provides an additional benefit of an option to save your work externally.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Done. Many thanks for the advice. First time making an article so always learning!--User:TomShorey

@Tomshorey:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Radionomy thread edit

Hello Sphilbrick, I would like to discuss on your thoughtful comments on my previous edit concerning the Radionomy thread and especially regarding the Sony lawsuit of 2016. Is there some way to enhance, enrich and further develop the related matter? Was the link/referencing i provided not sufficient or complying to the Wiki rules?

Thank you.

Seincere Regards, TheoKor — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoKor (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheoKor: The material you added with subject to copyright (I believe). In general, you should be writing things in your own words, in some cases, it may be appropriate to include the exact wording material from a source but it should limited in length, and in quotation marks or block quote. I dealt with dozens of issues today so I don't know that I specifically recall this one but I think I recall that you did provide a reference — references are always a good idea but having \ a reference doesn't mean that copyrighted material can be used.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr

Hi, Sphilbrick, how are you? Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr seems to have been deleted and restored quite often recently, and somewhere along the line seems to have lost its talk-page. I rather need it – I've removed a series of copyvios there, and want to place a {{cclean}} and a warning to COI editors on the talk. Could you kindly restore it? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I recently restored it in connection with an OTRS inquiry which has been resolved, and after resolution I deleted again. I don't think I worked with the talk page.

I can make a copy of the contents and email it to you but I'm not quite sure why you would want the talk page restored if the article is deleted. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's OK now that it's been deleted again – which of course it hadn't been when I posted here. I'm still completely bewildered by the whole thing – why it was deleted without discussion, why a copyvio version was restored to mainspace, why we'd restore something to satisfy the demands of an OTRS correspondent instead of just suggesting they try archive.org – but no matter, on with the next! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:I can give some partial answers. As you probably know, OTRS correspondence is treated as confidential unless the person involved just permission to discuss the contents.

The deletion log shows that it was deleted on 9 May as an A7. It doesn't appear to me that it was deleted as a copyright issue.

Regarding archive.org, I'm generally familiar with the project but frankly, it did not occur to me that one could look there to see deleted articles. I'll try to keep that in mind the next time someone wants to see a deleted article, because I often do get such requests.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nightscream: I like photo one the best of the three. In photos two and three dark portions of the background a very similar colored to his hair and his jacket. It is quite a blend but it's offputting. (The original question asked about shadows; my responses are on different issues. I didn't really notice the shadows at first but I guess the shadows of the glasses are more prominent in two and three but that just adds to the rationale).--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)