User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 38

UTA Women's Basketball roster

I don't know about a walk-on specifically, but I do know you can e-mail the women's bball SID at mcebold@uta.edu. I would have done it, but the roster is from last season. FoUTASportscaster (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, that's embarrassing. Most teams have updated rosters by now. The only other exception I've noted is TAMU - what is it about Texas:)? FoUTASportscaster, thanks for the address.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Priest of Love(Directors Cut) low res.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Priest of Love(Directors Cut) low res.jpg. 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. Werieth (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to help out someone. I am fine with it being removed, if not used.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Per WP:CAT, "Category:College women's basketball teams in the United States" should not be added to articles who are already in their own team-specific category. All of the subcategories of teams found in the above category (i.e. Category:Texas Tech Lady Raiders basketball) should not be reduplicated by having their article in the above category also. It's overcategorization. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Jrcla2 Here's the challenge.

As part of my work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Women's basketball (which I invite you to join), I proposed an edit to the CBB roster templates to exclude the weight column. The way the template was designed, I could not simply change the template, I had to manually edit every prior instance of the template. I wanted to do that in AWB, which makes it easy to identify the relevant articles if they are in a category. However, there was no single category covering all the articles with CBB templates for wbb teams. I noticed that Category:College women's basketball teams in the United States existed, and it seemed like the perfect choice, so I added that to all the affected articles, then I was able to use AWB to easily identify the articles.

Arguably, I was using it for maintenance, so maybe it should be a maintenance cat, or a different one should be created. However, this wasn't simply a case of finding a cat and dropping it in because it seemed relevant. I used it for a specific purpose and it was useful. I will need it again. Next year, rosters will be updated, and I will want to find all the articles with rosters. That cat is a superset of the right list.

If there is a better way (other than manually keeping a separate list) please let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) If I'm understanding your dilemma correctly, what you could have done is created a list of all pages that transclude the template in question. Then, you can do an advanced regex replace to strip out or modified the changing parameter. AWB would simply skip the pages without that parameter. Technical 13 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing useful AWB tutorial

Four responses: I don't know how to do that. I was able to write a search and replace which worked, but I don't know how to specify in AWB, all articles containing a particular template. I see 19 ways in AWB to specify a list, none of which (to my naive eyes) looks like "all article containing template X" I have other uses of the cat. For example, Texas A&M Aggies women's basketball is in the cat, but that article doesn't yet have the template, because they haven't yet updated their roster. I can use the cat to monitor those articles with the template, or which are candidates for the template. I'm not yet fully grokking the opposition to branches,as opposed to leaves of the cat tree. Maybe it will sink in eventually, but even if it does, I have needs, and would like to find out how to satisfy them if a branch cat is verboten. Thanks for weighing in, you are one of the editors who has the technical skills to help me figure this out, so I appreciate you weighing in, even if it doesn't sound it :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC) In a coincidence, I am dealing with a real life exact counterpart. My employer replaced a category tree over the weekend with a new category tree, and with the new tree, mandated that only leaves, not branches, be used. This is necessitating quite a bit of cleanup effort and headaches. I haven't yet had it explained to me why leaves but not branches. If I get an answer at one place, maybe the light will go on for the other place.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Without knowing the template in question or the parameter and how it is changing, I can only offer you a general "how-to" for my suggestion above: From the "make list" menu, select What transcludes page (all NS) Type the name of the template in the input box Template:Foo for example Click Make list You should now have a complete list of all pages using the template; Feel free to click Filter to sort the list and remove pages in unwanted Namespaces from the list. Next you need to set up your ReGex to find the parameter and modify it to meet the new specifications In the Find and replace section of the Options tab make sure the Enabled checkbox is checked Click Advanced settings Click New Rule Give the Rule a Name and make sure Enabled is selected (it is by default) Check the Regular expression checkbox and click Test In the Find box, type in the regular expression that AWB should be looking for. Perhaps something like: \{\{Foo\|bar=baz\}\} In the Replace box, type in whatever is suppose to go back in place of the previous template. To remove |bar=baz: {{Foo}} In the Text to search box, put in a few examples of possible encounters to test that your ReGex works as expected: {{Foo}} {{Foo|bar=baz}} {{Foo|bar=meh|baz=bla}} Clicking Replace should give an output in the Result box like: {{Foo}} {{Foo}} {{Foo|bar=meh|baz=bla}} The status bar of the test window should say "1 replacement preformed in 0 ms". To see which test was replaced (as an experiment), click Find. Your Result should change to: {{{Foo|bar=baz}}} {{{Foo|bar=baz}}} Once you have gotten your ReGex working as you want it to (feel free to give me more details and ask for help with ReGex) click Click Yes to the "Do you want to apply your changes" popup question Click Close in the bottom right corner. Click on the Start tab Make any adjustments to your edit summary (I always link to the discussion that explains what I am doing) and toggle your minor/lock the way you want. Click Start and work your way through! I hope that tutorial helps, and if you need more specific help, let me know! Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Oh how silly I feel. I looked in the list for Source, but missed that I needed to scroll down. Got it, thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) I did my search and replace a little differently than you describe. Too much on my plate at the moment (thanks to the G13 flood), but I'll come back to this nice tutorial next time I need to use AWB. Thanks --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13's response seems to be a reasonable solution. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

re G13: Thanks!

It's good to see that someone is looking out for the editors whose material is being deleted. Despite efforts to give people a chance to rescue these, with so many in the queue, and so many other tasks for the Afc reviewers, some good ones may be missed. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel bad when deleting a pile of mush, but I always have a bit of a twinge when I see an article which obviously has a decent amount of effort put into it. Knowing how hard it is to start a decent page from scratch, I hate to see all that work flushed away, even though sometimes it is necessary. I saw one other today which looked like a fine article, then I saw the reason, it duplicated an existing article. That has to hurt, to go to the effort of gathering sources and creating an article, only to find that it already exists. I'm somewhat surprised to see that someone can search for sources and not stumble across the Wikipedia entry, but I've seen it happen.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I suspect many of those were copy and pasted from the existing article in an attempt to improve the article instead of working on the actual article directly. Like a sandbox. I also suspect many of the rest were declined multiple times and the creator got enough edits and took enough time in the process to copy and paste into mainspace without waiting on the laast revue, which caused "already exists" declination... Either way, I wouldn't feel too bad about most of them is my point.. Technical 13 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I do remember seeing at least one where it was clear the editor moved directly into mainspace and abandoned the AfC.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found many, many of these in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template, because having accidentally or deliberately removed the template(s), both the submit button and the link to the help page were gone. If there was a lot of history in the abandoned draft, I have been asking for a history merge on these. If just a few edits by the same editor over a short period of time, I have been requesting a housekeeping delete. There have been fewer of these lately, and I think it's the Teahouse invitations that are helping. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes. IIRC, there were some challenges because you were asking for a lot of history merges, which were falling on a small (like one) volunteer. I think I said then, and repeat, we need to turn you into an admin so you can clean those up yourself :) I'm partially kidding. I went for a long time without doing a history merge,t hen had to do one and Moonriddengirl walked me though it, and I was surprised how easy it was. We need to find others to go the same route, so there will be others to help out. I'd offer, but I'm drowning in G13's so want to wait till that flood is over.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to do some history merges once my RfA has been confirmed (I plan on running in a month or two when real life settles down some for me). I also hope to get in and do some G13 deletion cleanup before they are all gone. ;P Technical 13 (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good thing you added the smilie, 'cause I was going to question your sanity. I'm starting to question mine.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My experience with these is that most of these are moves of a declined article into mainspace; I suppose some might be the other way, as Anne suggested, but I've never noticed it--I'll check more carefully, because I might be assuming things. Frankly, I do not worry much about attribution in these cases, or about merging article histories. If, as is usually the case, the same person wrote the various versions, it doesn't even matter for the most stringent possible interpretations of copyright, If it's clear the AfC preceded the article, I redirect to the talk page and leave it at that. If it's not altogether clear, I tend to do just the same--it preserves the history in case someone wants to figure out the details. If things get too complicated, it's not practical to be exact: it's more important to rescue content. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

BPI

Hi there - would it be possible to reinstate the page for British Polythene Industries please without the offending Cision article. I'm sure no malice was intended, just a bit of carelessness on our half. I'll try to keep everyone in line in future... Thanks in advance Jayneeblake (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BPI

Thanks for the BPI info - I'll leave it until we have something exciting to say. All the best Jayneeblake (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're cleaning up so much AfC junk that I can't see any exciting Recent changes anymore. Remember you're a volunteer; we don't really get ten dollars for every deleted article. Also, why didn't you just send Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nazi Zombies to mainspace??? Deletionist! Drmies (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I blew that one away. It is so obviously a keeper. I did see that it needed a couple tweaks, so I dropped it into your user space, let me know when you've cleaned it up.

Thanks for noticing, although a note on timing, I just had a stay at home and work on Wikipedia ten day holiday, but it is ending today, so I won't be cleaning up as much during the day for the next few weeks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it; you'll see it next at DYK. Now, look in your history. Your "Nazi Zombies" edit took up 666 bytes. Coincidence? I think not... Drmies (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HA! Technical 13 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, but I'm worried that you noticed. What does that say about you?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was going to create Nazi Zombies as a redirect to Ratlines (World War II), but I see it already exists as a dab page. Some of those movies look like fun, like Dead Snow. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wbb coaches/Independent

No, I am not happy with the whole series of templates. Too quickly produced so the quality left something to be desired. One incomplete template repaired, 17 templates with links to disambiguation pages fixed. I am unsure if my fix on Template:Wbb coaches/Independent was done correctly, so you have to check that one. The Banner talk 22:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Banner You cleared up a mystery.

I saw that DPLbot added a DABlink template at 09:32, 11 September 2013 (but it didn't inform me, AFAIK). I clicked on the check button, and it said

"There are no disambiguation links on List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches"

Which was puzzling. It reminded me that the way I set it up, I hadn't checked for dabs. I did go through and found several cases where I had to add a dab, but none were cases which would be detectable by the bot. Apparently, you fixed some earlier. In fact, you fixed them before the dab template was added. How did you know?

I did fix the "Independent" issue.

You mentioned that you aren't happy with them. Is there an issue other than the need to fix the dabs? The version without the dabs was quite ugly, and I thought this was a nice solution, albeit not perfect. Are there issues I'm missing?

I see that you are a member of the dab team, do you know why the dab bot didn't inform me?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he didn't warn you because the dabs were in a subtemplate. It took me quite a while to figure out where does dabs were hidden and how they could be solved. But I managed to solve them. The structure of your templates is quite complicated and for most people too much to del with. Is there a way to make it easier? The Banner talk 08:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally, I agree that these should have been created as sub-pages of the main page. There are only a couple actual "templates" here; the header template and the entry template. The rest should be moved to be subpages of the article. Technical 13 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite following. If by sub-pages of the main page:

List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches/subpage x

those are not permitted. I'm happy to improve the structure, but to be honest, I am not fully understanding the problem. If you click on the edit link, it open up a page with all coaches in that conference, in an easily edited format, far easier to follow than a raw table. If it can be better, I'm all for it, but I'm not following the sub-page suggestion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Please show me where those are not permitted Sphilbrick as I know of many cases of WP:OTHERSTUFF and know that I've seen policies that imply that they are permitted. I would like to sort through them so I can be clear. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Subpages

Except in main namespace (article namespace), where the subpage feature has been disabled in the English Wikipedia, subpages are pages separated with a "/" (a slash) from their 'parent' page.

I wonder if we are on the same page, so to speak.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• That is a technical restriction that only applies to use of a few magic words and shortcut linking. It does not prohibit the use of or creation of sub-pages. The relevant pages on mw: and m: are:

• mw:Help:Magic words#Page names
• mw:Manual:$wgNamespacesWithSubpages
• mw:Help:Subpages
• m:Help:Link#Subpage feature

Good readings... :) Technical 13 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am still not following. Were you thinking that each conference could be a subpage, then the main page just a transclusion of each subpage?

However, when I look at mw:Help:Subpages, it states, By default, MediaWiki’s subpage feature is turned off in the main namespace... so my understanding is that it isn't simply the case that it is discouraged, it is physically not possible.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Gordon_Highlander_steam_locomotive.jpg

I'm hoping you can help me.

This image was uploaded on 6 October 2012 by User:Alanyoung2154, and it credits 'Mike Cooper' as the author. Looking at the uploader's talk page (User_talk:Alanyoung2154) he's emailed permissions but there has been some difficulty matching the uploads with the permissions. Could you please look at the OTRS log and see if there's enough information for us to keep this image?

I'm asking because I see you've had some discussions with the uploader in the past, and I would like to keep this image for an article Great North of Scotland Railway, currently at FAC. Edgepedia (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've processed quite a few from the uploader. That one I don't recall. However, that doesn't yet prove anything. I've been inactive at OTRS for a few weeks, but I will take a look in the morning and see if I can check it out. Please poke me if I do not respond soon, I came home to several requests which I am juggling.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edgepedia, I found something, but need to sort something out.--SPhilbrick

(Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, partly to myself to explain the "sort something out" comment. I found the permission statement, and saw that it was closed, but did not see the OTRS tag. I now think I know why. Permissions statement are usually processed in a certain queue (logically, called "permissions"). We have a different queue when people want to contribute a photograph (Called "photosubmissions"). The permission was in that queue. The agent who processed it is not active at the moment, but I think what happened is the agent noticed that the attached files had already been uploaded by someone else, so closed the request for upload, missing that the permissions still needed processing. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you. Edgepedia (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I was giving you a barnstar when I got an edit conflict! I've been through the uploader's uploads, (see User:Edgepedia/sandbox3) and there a few without OTRS tags. What's the best thing to do, list for deletion, or post somewhere else first? Edgepedia (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me start looking into them. I have a question about File:Macduff Railway station.jpg which I just sent to the listed author. I'll look at the others. I've processed many by Stuart Sellar, but some of the other names are new to me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for you help in this. Edgepedia (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shake your betting Bayesian manly hand

	The fluorine barnstar
	For your sourcing work in the chemical reactivity section.71.127.131.41 (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.71.127.131.41 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed unrelated history

You are the only contributor to the article so you can just move it back and copy-paste the contents instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Assessment

Dear Sphilbrick: I saw your message on RHaworth's page about the positive side of Afc. The above link is where to see the passed articles. There have also been about 40,000 that were deleted for being spam, copyvios, blank, jokes, etc., that would have had to have been dealt with by NPP if Afc hadn't done it. I also think that once editors have been through Afc, even if their first article didn't make it, are a little more careful about what they add directly to the encyclopedia in the future, so there's a positive effect on many articles that never were submitted to Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Very interesting. I was momentarily surprised to see so many entries in the "File" column, but I did not realize that File for upload falls under AfC. I often process similar requests sent in to OTRS, I had forgotten about this feature. I was trying to avoid becoming jaundiced by seeing only the rejected side of things, I know there were many success stories, but it is good to see explicitly. Thanks for the work that you do. As a minor aside, how often does an editor thank an AfC reviewer? While I was thanked a number of times when working in feedback, I sometimes put a lot of work into a review, and then heard nothing. Very discouraging. A nice thank-you made up for it, but those were rare. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Authr logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Authr logo.jpg. 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. Werieth (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Progressive Barnstar

		The Progressive Barnstar
		I couldn't find a barnstar that would adequately thank those involved in making the template editor user right RFC a reality, so I created this new one. The Progressive Barnstar recognizes those courageous enough to work towards a vision for change at Wikipedia. Sphilbrick, your musings in the Administrators' noticeboard thread that got this RFC started were critical -- especially in that you were the one to first point out Trappist the monk's RfA, a prime example of the issue that requires addressing. I consider it a success at this point, no matter what the eventual outcome, and I thank you. equazcion (talk) 06:28, 18 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association‎ SPEEDY DELETION

Would like a copy of that article at least restored to my user space. I understand there was a speedy deletion due to a perceived copyright violation? I'd be happy to ask the above to officially grant Wikipedia copyright permission for what was said if there is a procedure for that, or work towards removing the offending copy. The above is a non-profit trade group. There are three in the related group:

• Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (North America) www.sifma.org
• Association for Financial Markets in Europe www.afme.eu
• Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association www.asifma.org

Which operate under

• Global Financial Markets Association www.gfma.org

Taken together those trade organizations probably represent the firms that generate over 80% of securities trading worldwide.

The page Donating copyrighted materials has the steps for providing a license to use test subject to copyright. Let me know if the instructions are not sufficiently clear.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a copy of the deleted page into my user space? Rick (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not permitted to do that with copyright issues. If the permission is filed and accepted, it can be done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Its hard to ask for permission without showing what you are asking permission for. Also Association for Financial Markets in Europe was similarly deleted. Suggestions? Can those trade groups publish their own pages on WikiPedia or will that be considered a violation of self interest?Rick (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is easy to ask for permission. The permission is not for the Wikipedia article, but for the text to be used. However, even if you do arrange for permission, it is not good practice to have a substantial portion of an article from a copyrighted source associated with the subject. Some material makes sense, but if the majority, maybe even vast majority is not from other sources, the article will run into other problems. As for your question Can those trade groups publish their own pages on WikiPedia, absolutely not. We want material about organization to be written by editors who are independent of the organization.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not have copies of the articles that were deleted. The deletion was within 12 hours of nomination, so I'd say that the deletion cycle was very abbreviated. I'm positive the material in question was published broadly on the web and the exact sources were clearly and directly cited. I don't believe there is a bright line standard as to what violates copyright legally, in terms of the amount (number of words, sentences, etc) copied, especially when there is a clear reference to the source, and the content in question was freely published on the Internet. (If you have exact legal guidance here I'd be much obliged to have a pointer to it). If there was a legitimate complaint from a copyright holder then immediate deletion would be warranted. In cases such as these however, a 12 hour deletion cycle with zero access to the prior material for a reasonable amount of time seems very harsh. For instance, why wasn't the copyrighted material just removed and the remaining article marked, for the time being, "stub"?

To clear the air - I have ZERO connection, business, personal, direct or indirect with any of the organizations I write or edit about on WikiPeda. I also have ZERO long or short financial positions, direct or indirect, in any of the public firms I write on or edit on WikiPeda at the time I make my postings. As a total disinterested party (yet well informed in the area) I'd opine that those trade organizations are clearly large (and influential) enough to easily warrant Wikipedia coverage.

Also noted that the article Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts has been wiped clean twice (history) and has been twice made into a redirect to the Financial Stability Board. This is dead wrong. The LEI initiative was "kicked off" by the USA (Not FSA). Its very much its own entity, with its own governance, own board, complete freedom from FSA, etc. FSA had some great input into it, but that's about it. LEI is not even discussed in the FSA article. FSA would be appalled to have anyone imply that they individually owned or totally controlled (directly or indirectly) the LEI standard. That would be absolutely counterproductive to the mission (to which they fully buy into) that the standard should be international. Rick (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry in advance if you think I'm less sympathetic than you think I should be, but every so often, someone notes that they composed an article, or a long edit in an edit box, and do not have it, either because something happened with the save, or the article was deleted. I will compose a few words or a sentence directly in an edit box, but anything longer, and I compose it in an editor an copy and paste it in. Once in a while, I'll do something longer without an editor, and I almost always seem to regret it. So my first question is, how is it possible that you do not have a local copy? Second, I saw the article before it was deleted. I deleted it because virtually all the words were a direct copy of material subject to copyright. You know where that material is, so how is it possible that there is much to gain by a userfied copy? Other than maybe a couple section headings, everything was a copyright violation. If you can arrange for permission for the text, you have the text, and you can recreate the article in minutes.

You made reference to deletion within 12 hours of nomination. Does that time period have some policy implication, or are you just observing the actual length of time? I've deleted many articles due to copyright issues, and many within minutes of creation, so I'm curious why you are bringing up the timing. I don't know that we have a distribution of timing, but 12 hours strikes me as more than the median. Again, no study available, but my guess is that the median time to deletion from notification is less than six hours.

You mentioned "exact legal guidance". Wikipedia has its own guidelines on how to avoid copyright issues, and these are not the exact legal guidelines. Of course, we cannot do anything less stringent than the law, but because we want to avoid litigation, we are typically more stringent than the law. For example, the law might allow a certain number of words without triggering a copyright violation, and we typically would take measures with a shorter number of words. Part of this is because the exact legal guidance is gray, and doesn't specify safe harbors. I can elaborate if necessary, but it won't help to look at the legal guidelines, you need to look at out guidelines. For example see Wikipedia:Copyright.

You said:

If there was a legitimate complaint from a copyright holder then immediate deletion would be warranted.

That's an interesting idea for a proposal, but it is decidedly not our rule. Our rule is that unequivocal violations should be removed on the spot. Gray area items are often blanked pending an investigation. While I am sure some issues are undetected for some time, if they are detected, we address them immediately. I have probably deleted or removed material in over 1000 articles, and I can only think of a small handful of situations where we were contacted about problematic material. We try to take care of it before it gets noticed.

You said:

For instance, why wasn't the copyrighted material just removed and the remaining article marked, for the time being, "stub"?

That is an option, and one I have done on several occasions. However, it requires that there be enough material left after removal of the material subject to copyright to qualify as an article. I didn't think that was the case.

You said:

Also noted that the article Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts has been wiped clean twice (history) and has been twice made into a redirect to the Financial Stability Board.

I didn't so that. If you don't know how to identify who did, let me know and I will track it down so you can let them know it is in error.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to track that editor down; it was me. I redirected Legal Entity Identification for Financial Contracts because it, too, was copy & pasted from elsewhere. Rjlabs reverted my first attempt at removing copyvio but the second attempt seems to have worked. I first noticed a problem over at 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss. Somebody else has already tagged Global Financial Markets Association for copyvio, and I think other articles need to be checked too. Thanks for your patience... bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)