User talk:OSMOND PHILLIPS

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:


 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Mattie Blaylock, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jesse James, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm Btphelps. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bat Masterson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You've uploaded a number of images but have failed to establish the provenance or copyright of the images. Inadequate sources don't prove these images are valid nor that the image is pre-1923. Unfortunately the so-called Phillips Collection has not been vetted by authoritative third-party experts. Wikipedia cannot lend credence to images of dubious origins. '' — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright discussion
To help you get your images uploaded successfully, I've initiated a discussion. Please participate! — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, OSMOND PHILLIPS. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. '' You have confirmed your conflict of interest in this discussion Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/October and therefore should not be introducing anymore photos from the Phillips Collection into anymore articles. In addition according to the photos you have already uploaded OTRS has not received any verification regarding this images. If you have not sent them anything please do so immediately. Please do not add anymore photos and instead follow the conflict of interest guidelines outlined above. Thank you. Stabila711 (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)''


 * Stabila711, Thank you for helping me understand the Wiki guidelines. I will be contacting OTRS as soon I understand the process better. I also now understand that I need to request any changes using "propose changes". I will be following the procedure. Thank you again for letting me know. New user at Wiki, OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Granting permission to use photos
Osmond, to grant permission to use your photos on Wikipedia, you need to complete something called OTRS. This is explained here. In a nutshell, you need to grant permission using the guidelines here. If you don't complete this process, all of the photos will be deleted. Also, please note, that when you upload photos to WP, you are granting anyone permission to use them in any way they see fit. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting photos added
Hi Osmond, to work around the possible COI, when you upload photos, you can make a list of them on your User page, and let me know. When I have time, I can add them to relevant articles. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello BtPhelps, I appreciate your help. I will let you know when I add photos. The ones I have left are of very high profile people. I am waiting for final facial analysis before adding the photos. Just like the Jesse James and Wyatt Earp photo. people will dispute it and will be very angry if you say you have a photo of their Old West hero. I will be able to use the same forensics that are accepted in our court of law as evidence backing the images.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubtful photograph
Osmond, Happy Thanksgiving! I don't have access to the professionals who have supposedly reviewed all of the photos you are posting and pronounced them as genuine. But I have a serious issue with accepting that this you uploaded (#1 below) is actually of Wyatt Earp. Of the many images of him that are well-established and have some kind of known provenance, the only faint resemblance between this new image and the other known images of him at various ages is his ears. They eyebrows, the hairline, the hair style, and hair part are all different. Furthermore, given the clothing style, I'd place this photo circa 1910, making Earp about 60 years old. The person in this image doesn't appear to be 60 years old, and when compared to known images of Earp at ages prior to and after the estimated date of your image, they don't compare very well:

I added three photos of Wyatt Earp comparisons as partial evidence that the Wyatt photos from the Phillips collection are actually of Wyatt.


 * This collection will also be able to prove that the well known photo of Wyatt at age 21 circa 1870 is actually circa 1875. We have a photo of Wyatt at 21 pictured with his wife Urilla. We will also be able to prove without a doubt that the photo of Josephine Earp taken at Fly's studio is not Josephine. We know who it is. The photo has passed as Josephine for decades and is posted on Wiki. Another photo is of Crawley Dake posted on Wiki with a Dake photography stamp that is not him. This collection will add to Old West history. Not allowing it to be recognized while further research is being done on its provenance is a disservice to our Old West history. Thank you for your consideration. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be able to provide evidence from Photography and Facial Forensic professionals that the photo is of Wyatt Earp before the end of the year. It is circa 1885. I would prefer that you just take the photo down for now instead of deleting it from Wiki because it is hard to use the image again. I do not understand the process to re-instate photos.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One of our articles on Wyatt Earp and a photograph has just been published on Historynet.com. A shorter version of the article has already been printed and will be out again in the February issue of Wild West magazine. The editor has already sent us copies. Search Wyatt Earp in Ellsworth to find it. The extended article with more photographs from the Phillips Collection pertaining to the event in Ellsworth in 1873 can be found at historyandmystery.net. Our facial analysis on the photo showed some consistencies in authenticated photos of Wyatt. We could not get higher results due to his ear not being clear enough. The editor and his panel of Earp historians could see the strong possibility of it being him and accepted the article.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to address the provenance of this issue because once the image is accepted and used on Wikipedia, it will acquire some legitimacy. There are other images of Earp not found on Wikipedia that also do not appear to match the image you recently uploaded. I have a serious issue with accepting at face value the unqualified determination that this image is of Wyatt Earp. The same could be same for many of the other images you've uploaded, though I am considerably less familiar with those western personas.

I'm not sure what the resolution is, but I guess in this instance I'd like to know who the "expert" is that came to the conclusion that image is of Wyatt Earp, what is that expert's background, and how that person came to that conclusion. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Osmond. I noticed on the Jesse James talk page another editor disputed the authenticity of two images uploaded by you which were subsequently deleted. Some of the images you've uploaded appear to be a good match for the identity of the individual named. But others are quite a stretch to accept as legitimate.


 * After further consideration, I believe you need to disclose your real identity and who you work for. You've stated on my talk page that "I AM THE AGENT AND PROMOTER OF THIS COLLECTION." No one can be assured that any potential conflict of interest related to the many images you've uploaded is resolved unless you disclose your personal information and employment related to these images. It seems obvious that if you're hired to promote the images, someone stands to reap some kind of potential financial benefit from these images that have been identified by an unknown individual. For example, a legitimate image of Jesse James can be worth a very large sum of money.


 * An email has been sent to you regarding who I am and my connection to the Phillips Collection. I will also attach the contract that states this when you respond. Thanks, OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunately a delicate situation and I regret that it's necessary to ask this of you. I'd like to trust everyone and every company, but that's just not possible. You've also stated in a discussion about the copyright origin of the images that "I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract." If you're willing to submit the contract which would identify the company and your name, then it should not be a stretch to disclose your real identity and who you're employed by here on your talk page. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have responded to the Jesse James pages. We will continue the discussion after I have facial analysis results.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I expect you will continue to experience opposition to the many images you have and want to upload still. Before some of the more controversial or less obvious images (like the one of Earp above that I questioned), it may require some third-party articles written by reliable sources (HistoryNet, for example) that describe the process of how the photos have been vetted (by the visibility of recognizable individuals in similar photographs, forensic analysis, etc.). WP is conservative in this regard.


 * OSMOND, the images you uploaded "not for public viewing" are already public just because you uploaded them. If you don't want that, go back to the images NOW and edit them and add this template and fill in the blanks.

Otherwise anybody and anyone can not only view them but modify them to their heart's content. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 18:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BtPhelps, I don't mind if the photos are seen. I added the "not for public viewing" meaning these images shouldn't be used on Wiki pages. They are only to help in the discussion of the Wyatt Earp photo. I don't know why anyone would add them to a wiki public page anyway. I have changed the caption. The comparison photos were added as partial evidence. Another example of my inexperience. Thank you for your alert and concern. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the images are not added to an article, they may be noted as "orphans" and deleted. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Photos removed from article
As you may have noticed, the photo of Luke Short you added has been removed by an editor who is a Western author and expert. You may want to reach out to him and see if you can help him appreciate what you're working towards. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Complete OTRS process
Hi OSMOND, if you completed the OTRS process, you need to let the editors know on the copyright discussion page. If this issue isn't closed, other editors may take steps to remove your images or otherwise place sanctions on your account. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 04:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

OTRS process completed. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Housekeeping
Hi OSMOND, a couple of housekeeping notes:


 * When adding images to articles as you did to Billy Clanton, please be sure they are placed in the body of the article. See the current version for my clean up.
 * Don't leave a space at the left edge of comments on talk pages as you did here. WP formats that as plain text and doesn't wrap or format it, making it potentially illegible when it exceeds the page margin.
 * When adding images to Commons, use this copyright tag:
 * The images you've added to Commons are getting challenged and deleted because the provenance is unknown and not yet established.

Your images as you know still lack credibility. Instead of fighting to prove the legitimacy of each image individually, which will consume a lot of time on an ongoing basis, you may consider how to prove the legitimacy of the collection first.

— btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello BtPhelps, Thank you for the information. I have added other photos that I did not put in the info box because there was one already there like the Billy Clanton and Mclaury's coffin photo. I did not want to have a conflict with the user who added it. Thank you for making the adjustment for me.


 * We are working every day on trying to prove the legitimacy of the collection. More and more people are seeing that this collection does warrant attention and deserves consideration for its vast potential and its potential contribution to our old west history. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Join the gang!
Hi OSMOND, we have a wild and woolly group here on WP that's more or less active and strives to round up the latest and greatest content on the Old West. You're invited to join the roping contest over in the Old West Wikiproject. Just add your name to the bottom of the list of participants this way:. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 01:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the invite! OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories and license correction needed
OSMOND, you need to add categories to the images you've uploaded to Commons. Categories are used to help users find images, to sort them, and—well—categorize them. To add a category, open the image page. Go the very bottom of the page and click on the + sign after the word "Categories". Begin to type something descriptive, and you will see suggested categories begin to appear. For example, you can add geographical categories like "People from Kansas" or "Wild West".

You also need to modify the license on many of these images from to. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Added category and modified license. Thank you for the help. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of request at Administrators' noticeboard
This message is to notify you that I am discussing your uploading of photos of unknown provenance and disputed authenticity to Wikimedia Commons. Here is a link to that page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Multiple_images_with_no_provenance_claimed_to_be_of_famous_figures_in_the_American_Old_West

I intend to request that they be deleted from Wikipedia commons. Carlstak (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Tunstall wiki.JPG listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tunstall wiki.JPG, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. File:Tunstall wiki.JPG Carlstak (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)  Carlstak (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Billy the Kid. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Yes, I am a novice user. I have had this fight before with Jack DeMattos who got kicked off or suspended from Wiki for his major changes and removal of the same photographs. I assume he has a new name or helper in user Winkelvi. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Are you accusing me of sock-puppetry?  DeMattos was briefly blocked, but is no longer blocked and has edited since his block was lifted.  I've had my account for some time now and am certainly not DeMattos.  If I was, would I be defending the photo of Tunstall at Wikimedia Commons?  Don't make these kind of accusations.  They are taken seriously, and if you keep it up, things will not end well for you in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  10:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I just learned what sock puppetry meant. Since you are defending it I had you confused with another user. I knew that DeMattos hated the photo and all the photos from the collection and I thought he had helper who was targeting the photos. I will slow down and read it again. Sorry for the comment. I don't understand all of the rules and terminology yet and probably never will entirely, but I do know photos. Thank you for believing in the photo of Tunstall. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:OSMOND PHILLIPS


A tag has been placed on User:OSMOND PHILLIPS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... I put the resume of the Phillips Collection on my User page and talk page not knowing where the proper place to add it was. Evidence for the discussion on the John Tunstall photograph and the Phillips Collection. I will add the resume to the discussion page. I was concerned about its length. --OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion affecting you
Please see WP:ANI for a discussion affecting you. Nyttend (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:ANI, you may be blocked from editing. ''Read the boomerang essay. By posting spam in full view of many administrators, you make a block likely.'' Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert McClenon, Dat Guy, try to give OSMOND PHILLIPS some allowances. They have been a WP editor since July 1 and are still a newbie. They were attempting to provide a list of the experts that they have used to authenticate the photos that are the subject of the ANI discussion. They don't know the rules and policies of WP. Allow a little bit of good faith. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 20:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit was not constructive, and seemed like a copy and paste move which had nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Therefore, I clicked the q button on my keyboard and Huggle reverted it and sent a warning to the user. Further discussion should fall under the AN/I report. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What the hell, and ? These two warnings look like level 3s, at least - which is overkill. This editor is a newbie who has no idea what he added at AN/I would be considered disruptive. Both of you are out of line with these overblown, bitey warnings. I know at least one of you knows better (or should). Please tone it down and back off. You're not helping, indeed, these warnings are what seem truly disruptive, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * WV, thanks for your input. and, if you'd taken a moment to absorb the nature of the content added by PHILLIPS, you would have seen the context. I ask that you remove these Level 3 warnings and tone down your approach. We're trying to find a solution here, not start a war against a newbie editor. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 06:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did read it before issuing the warnings. I suggest that the newbie editor request advice, since they have received some advice and ignored it.  The purpose of templates to newbie editors is to give them a chance to request advice.  I suggest that they listen to, and possibly request, advice, possibly at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Advanced-level warnings issued to a newbie before primary-level warnings is bad form and certainly doesn't make anyone feel welcome, much less they should then seek advice. Seeking advice is usually done when one feels they are in a non-hostile environment.  Which advanced-level warnings given to newbies doesn't garner.  Going to the teahouse is something you should have suggested to this editor before issuing an advance-level warning.  As someone who takes cases at DRN, you should already know all this.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)