User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 23

Map Workshop
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh &#91;chat] 02:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin
There is now a Brett Kimberlin article. It is a mess. 169.230.30.104 (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Ruff Sqwad Photo.jpg
Hi, you restored File:Ruff Sqwad Photo.jpg after receiving permission for the image. It seems that you forgot to add the OTRS ticket. — ξ xplicit  01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up, I knew I had something undone, but I couldn't put my finger on it. In short, I reviewed the permission, concluded it was OK, and restored the permission. Then after restoring, I realized it came from a MySpace page, so I poked around a little, and became less convinced that everything was fine. I left an email for the uploader. I may be best to delete, until such time as I get satisfactory answers to my questions. I guess I can do that.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sarah (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you may miss my page
(from my page) I think a lot of things on wiki are overdone too. No matter what you do on wiki, someone gets pissed off. If you want to overturn it, go ahead. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Princess Theodora von Auersperg
Even though we have OTRS permission to use the text in Princess Theodora von Auersperg, what about the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Princess Theodora von Auersperg to delete the article for other reasons, including A7 and G11? —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the most recent edits to the page were about copyright issues which were resolved.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the page. I have updated it with a more basic version, with copious references from a variety of sources. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address everyone's concerns.

(Tonypanaccio (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

French dispersed air bases
Yes I have a copy of Jerry's book and I'll add inline citations Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will be helpful.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Updates completed as requested Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow you work fast! Thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL I suppose, Youre welcome Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Dow Air Force Base
What's wrong with this (specifically)? please so I know what you have an issue with. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded at your talk page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe I cleaned up the Dow article. Thank you for the link to the Duplication Director.  If you're fine with it you can remove the Investigation of potential copyright issue template, otherwise let me know.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work, from now on, I'm sending you all my problems. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Insecurity Insight
Hi there Sphilbrick! Can you please take a look at the conversation I have had with Pol430 (see this section of the talk page). It concerns the article Insecurity Insight which I very much would like to see back live now when the content which was flagged for copyright infringement has been released under a CC license. Many thanks for you help! Regards, Griberg 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC+2)
 * Just arrived home after a multi-day trip. Cannot address this now, but will look into it in the morning.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the permission email and processed it. Sorry it took so long.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion
I got your email. I made a reasonable attempt in an obvious manner to provide a free licence photo to Wikipedia in response to a request from an editor who knew I was related to the subject. A challenge was made assuming bad faith. An admin effectively then accused most contributors of lying and explained a general presumption of bad faith. The permissions email I submitted was not even read properly, tried to make an irrelevant clever point (incorrectly but never mind, the ratification of the Berne convention in the UK is slightly unusual and the existence of copyright without asserting it has not changed in years). Net result, another low quality stub with no photo and the project suffers. Bravo. Broadly my reaction is the same as when I was approached asking the release of hundreds of education videos into Wikipedia: there is a limit to how much rubbish people should have to put up with when they have been asked to help. The videos have ended up unreleased. --BozMo talk 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I do not know what you are talking about.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I figured it out who you are. Sorry, there's a multi-day backlog of permissions requests, and I thought I could respond quickly. I was wrong. I'll let someone else handle it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry I was a bit ratty about it. I guess I should have realised you were busy and frustrated too, but boy Wikipedia sometimes makes the easiest thing really hard to do. --BozMo talk 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! Thank you so very much.
Hello there, Sphilbrick. I just saw that you spent several hours finishing the transwiki request. What a kind and generous thing to do. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help. That really warms my heart and I just wanted to let you know how very thankful I am for your support. Thanks so very much. All the best. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. I know you trimmed your original request. If you need more, let me know. I trust you saw that two failed because the target name existed. I didn't do a compare; if they are fine, nothing needs to be done, if they aren't fine, delete the target, let me know and I'll do those two again.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum, I appreciate the thanks, and it did take some time, but far less than the several hours you mentioned. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"rv v"
It's a notorious dynamic-IP active in several articles, for example Alex Mercer / Prototype (series) / Template:Prototype‎, Victor Sullivan / List of Uncharted characters, Slimer and more.

It's's reverting everyone, usually in the matter of hours (or minutes), always writing "rv v", never responding to any attempts of communication from anyone. It's a dynamic IP and it goes on for a long time.

Other people dealing with this problem include Cyan Gardevoir, Kung Fu Man, Salvidrim, Malinaccier, Ohnoitsjamie, so you can ask any of them and they'll confirm this. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this I.P. does exist and is very disruptive. It's also active in Edward Carnby and Rabbids. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blowin' the Blues Away
Hi Sphil,

I've edited the text and reduced the length... generally I don't quote such slab of a review... Thanks for the heads up! DISEman (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much better now.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Guyovski
Hi! In response to a comment you made on the editor's talk page I left this comment:
 * The editor has not been treated badly. The editor is throwing a fit of epic proportions because the community disagreed with his/her assertions. This editor has also rebuffed all attempts to discuss the situation reasonably. This type of behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia.

If you review all of the material in this case, you will find that he/she is not the one who has been treated badly here, but has in fact been the bully/aggressor/harasser. There is no excuse for such behavior on Wikipedia. Thanks -- Taroaldo (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I reread your comment. And it appears "the editor treated badly" you referred to was J. Spadaro, (although it's still not totally clear). That renders much of the above comment null. I left the last part because the response by the community was not "over the top" given the seriousness of the actions taken. Taroaldo (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can revert your strikeout. I meant Guyovski. Repose in progress. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded at the talk page, thanks for informing me that you responded.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Strikeout reverted. Taroaldo (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

After e/c. Answering your Q at my talk page here 'cause it's a convenient thread: hmm, that is what I wanted discussed at AN, the question of what our written policy is in these situations, as opposed to whether or not the specific editor should be blocked. The fact that the discussion resulted in a unanimous (or close to it) decision to indef block certainly indicates our practice, so if current policy wording isn't sufficient we should be updating our policies (as they re descriptive not prescriptive). The answers you got at AN are pretty much what I would say, the relevant P'n'G are NLT and HARASS. It's a tricky case though. I think you are correct that it is not prohibited to do things that have RL consequences, but from NLT, if you're going in that direction, you generally have the trade-off that you're no longer an editor here, until the off-site matter is resolved. Now of course you can file complaints all day long from the privacy of your own home and just not tell anyone, and there are legitimate reasons to go off-site too. Heck, I've contacted my share of school network admins and gotten "tell me who" replies from the principal, and we have a project on WP:ABUSE reports, we report threats (WP:TOV) which probably get idle-brained 13-year-olds visits from the police, etc. There are a few lines you can't cross though. One is to use an off-site report to influence a content dispute and/or to augment a behavioural accusation on-wiki. I think there's near-universal agreement that you just can't do that. Now, the blockee here is claiming that was not their intention, but I think the timing shows they were still pursuing the dispute (under the guise of not wanting to pursue the dispute) on-wiki when they informed the other editor od their off-site report. That's a bit like walking into a bank waving a loaded gun and saying "I'm not robbing you, I just want you to loan me some money". Another line would be if the subject of the complaint was contacted by the off-site agency, so if you complain to the police about me and don't mention it on-wiki, if the police do call me you can expect me to request that you be blocked. I suppose that line would be case-by-case, depending on whether or not the on-wiki subject of your complaint looked reasonable to other editors. And another line (or zone) is how well an inclination to take/escalate problems off-wiki fits with suitability to edit here. This is actually a pretty wide zone, for instance we have quite a few editors who post at Wikipedia Review (could be defunct now, not sure). I do believe that posting there has resulted in RL consequences for people who edit peacefully here, just because it's (in our terms) an uncontrolled environment. And not to pin anything on WR specifically, but there are some real whack-jobs out there who apparently show up at your workplace and such-like. But we do tolerate people who further their grievances off-site, so it's really not all that clear. Generally though, I think that people who feel the need to pursue disputes off-wiki tend to end up working only off-wiki as a result of a (real, not this editor's confusion of terminology) ban, the two things seem to go hand in hand.

In the specific case at hand, when I first saw the edit in the course of dealing with the blockee's WQA report, my instinct was to block. The aggravating factors I considered were 1) the target was a (apparently) real-named editor. I am not generally sympathetic on that (you can't look me up in the phone book under Max, F.) but choosing to use your real name here should not expose you to gratuitous attacks over minor content disputes; and for a one-week-experience editor, combined with the on-wiki battle behaviour the ADL report was a very significant indicator of an ongoing problem with the editor. In mitigation, I considered that it was not a clear legal threat (hence my wish to clarify at AN, but I wouldn't have tied it to the specific editor); that the editor was quite new and could be cut some slack while also being given a quick education; and that the inbdications of battle behaviour would soon enough resolve to blocking anyway if it continued, new editors really do choose their own path eventually, to either cooperate or fight their way out the door. As it turned out, this editor seems to have chosen being "right" over being an editor here. Of course, in the hour and a half it's taken me to think through and type all this, everything may have changed when I save the page.

So two messages here: Beware asking me questions, as you may get an immense wall-of-text reply. ;) And yes, I do have some questions as to how well our P&G are worded on this, so if you can think of any wording changes or clarifications, that would be my objective for the AN thread, to get a clearer sense of where exactly the community stands and codify it. A newbie getting whacked is one issue (which their intransigence pretty much resolves all by itself), the other issue is whether we have good wording that would either support or refute my initial instinct to block. Your thoughts are welcome. (Do try to keep it brief LOL ;) Franamax (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to self - no more asking Franamax questions. Seriously, though, thanks. I want to respond, but it will take me some time to organize my thoughts.


 * The following is a cross-post of the comment I made at this talk page (feel free to remove it if you don't think it fits with this discussion on your talk page):
 * This is an interesting topic for discussion. It is not uncommon for one or more parties to remain unsatisfied after DR has run its course.  It is not a stretch to see that, in this case, Guyovski would have continued to remain unsatisfied after the full DR process because the claim that the dispute over the "holocaust denier" edit constitutes anti-semitism on the part of another editor is baseless. Would it be considered fair to complain to the ADL after a full DR process which (hypothetically at this point) found no basis for the accusation? And what would be the ramifications within Wikipedia if the accused editor sought remedies outside of Wikipedia?  LEGAL exists for some very important reasons. What would be the effect on this section of LEGAL, and on trust within the community, if spurious and disruptive allegations are allowed to gain traction?
 * The community has an obligation to make every effort to ensure that editors can do good faith work in the encyclopedia without being mercilessly dragged through the mud.

Taroaldo (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Taroaldo, you raise excellent points, but the following is a response to Franmax, although I touch on your point)

First point, the timing is bad; I have an overdue work project, and I'm avoiding it and must return to it. I agree with your point that we need clarification of policy, I fear that we have not yet achieved that.

Our DR process needs work at the detail level, but at a high level, I like it. Very roughly stated - pursue disputes locally first (with the other editor, with the admin, on the relevant talk page), and only if that fails, escalate to a low level DR board - WQ, 3RR, various notice boards, always cognizant of the distinction between content and behavior, which drives differing venues. If that fails, escalate to AN or ANI, or RfI (not necessarily in that order) and then only to ArbCom, then, if not satisfied to Foundation, but don't expect much there. We like to presume that this ends it, but this is where external venues become acceptable.

Here's where I would distinguish between clearly legal remedies - contacting a lawyer to sue, versus non-legal. Take the first route, only if you recognize that you will have to suspend editing privileges for the duration of the resolution. (As an aside, some non-legal actions ought to result in the same suspension, but at the moment, I think those should be debated on their merits, and I won't go into details now, but some ought to result in suspension, some ought not.) I hope, other than possibly my ill-defined parenthetical comment, that we are on largely the same page.

Where we depart is whether a report to ADL is a prima facie example of a legal threat.

Let's look at the responses of a few contributors:
 * "While not a legal threat" clearly concluding no
 * "Is it a breach of WP:NLT" not a clear yes or no, but obviously not a clear yes
 * "I honestly don't know whether there is anything wrong with the following" not a clear yes or no, but obviously not a clear yes
 * "The ADL should (hopefully) not be expected to take the complaint too seriously." not directly on point, but hardly support for the notion that it is clearly a legal threat.

Plus, drumroll,
 * "IMO it's roughly akin to a WP:LEGAL threat," It's close to yes, but this isn't horseshoes, hand grenades or ballroom dancing so close translates to "no".

In fact, there aren't many (any?) unequivocal yeses. If this were an AFD, I think we'd conclude the consensus is no.

Yet I agree with you that there was a consensus to block. However, I think that consensus was driven by the broader accumulation of a refusal of the editor to engage in proper DR. When they don't know the rules, it is our obligation to tell them the rules. When they hear the rules and still refuse, blocking is warranted, but for refusing to engage in proper DR, not for making a legal threat *As an important aside, to tie up one loose end, I posted above I was considering a reversal of the block. That was when I thought the block was precipitated by the first ADL report. However, I now see that it was precipitated by the second. I write off the first as a newbie misunderstanding. The second, no excuse.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC) my talk
 * Hi, I answered your message on page with my take on this saga. Let me know if you've seen it, and then I'm going to archive it. Guyovski has had more than enough air-time. Voceditenore (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did see it; thanks for your considered response. I mulled over whether to continue the discussion, but real-life intrudes, and I think the matter is ready for a rest.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mamod
 Ron h jones (Talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Leftover files uploaded by User:Ahjkl67435
Hi, you recently confirmed permission for several uploads made by, but there are a few that are still tagged with a deletion template, including files like File:Diego Voci Bio Picture.jpg, File:Drawing of Native American II.jpg, etc. Would that OTRS ticket apply to these images as well? — ξ xplicit  00:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the permission was broadly written, covering all paintings by Diego Voci, but dod not include a specific list, so I feared I might miss some. Unfortunately, I am in a location without access to the OTRS system. I may be back tonight, but more likely tomorrow. I will add the tags then. SPhilbrick  (Talk)  12:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else took care of this, thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hi! It says that you deleted File:BokaroThermalPowerStation.jpg as F9. Google Images suggests that File:Bokaro thermal.jpg might be the same file. Could you check if this is true, and, if so, delete the second file too? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Convexity risk nomination
There's two nomination. Articles for deletion/Convexity risk which was not transcluded, and Articles for deletion/Convexity risk (2nd nomination) which is, but the template substitution was broken which I've fixed (I think). You should probably delete one of them. Regards. KTC (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew I screwed up so I asked Dismas to help, but s/he may not be around.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the log for that day only the 2nd nomination was listed. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Dismas |(talk) 01:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Software license
Hello Sphilbrick,

thank you for all your help!

Could you possibly also look into the following, when you get the chance...?

At the top of the Software license article page there's a big frame/indication saying "This article needs additional citations for verification..."

Looks like this article hasn't been updated for almost 3 years, and this might drive/click visitors away.

So I changed the text from "Some [citation required] free licenses, such as the GNU..." to "Free licenses like the GNU..."

I could of course still change it to "The GNU allows..."

I think the author wouldn't mind, as he/she hasn't edited this page for about 2 months.

However, this frame/indication doesn't disappear - could you or someone take it out, as there are no citations needed?

Thanks again! Thomas Scholten (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Thomas Scholten (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi SPhilbrick,


 * do you still receive emails sent to "Permissions", as I sent an email there on July 2? On May 30 you suggested to move my inquiry to the german information queue.


 * If you could do this, that would be great. Is the german information queue on en.wikipedia or de.wikipedia?


 * Do you think it would also be possible to add my reference under articles like "Software" (and "Outline of software")? I think it would fit well. Even though "Software" has some issues, especially the "History" and "Types of software" section. My English is not so perfect to make any changes - the text looks good to me... and since there haven't been any improvements since Jan. 2012, why not get rid of all the warnings? But maybe I think too simple :-) Thomas Scholten (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see mail sent to permissions, but I am one of dozens of people who have access to permissions. I do not remember seeing your email. I searched for an email from "Thomas Scholten" but did not find one. However, the nature of the search is that it will fail if the match isn't exact. I searched for emails on 2 July, but there are over 500, so I am not able to check every one. I thought I might find it if I searched for "software license" but unfortunately, that term is used broadly so that generate too many hits.


 * I did look at the German queue. I don't see any unanswered emails from 2 July.


 * The queues aren't on en.wikipedia or de. wikipedia, they are on their only separate location. An email sent to permissions  -at- wikimedia.de will end up in the German queue.


 * As for adding your reference to the other locations, I don't know what would happen. I've only just glanced, but the software article is quite general. There is a section on licensing, but several sections are summaries of more extended articles, such as in this case, and editors may feel that the references belong in the linked articles. You can try, but I make no promises. The Outline of software is a survey, and even more than software, seems to have a paradigm of listed articles but not references except for very general ones. The outline article generally gets fewer than ten hits a day, so probably not worth the bother, even if allowed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is fine, I won't bother. Thank you very much! Thomas Scholten (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Interesting that you mention that no non-admin should close the deletion discussion at issue when that is exactly what happened in this case. Spartaz appears to have been an admin long ago but not now. I don't necessarily disagree with how this worked out but it was interesting that what you said should not happen had, in fact, happened days ago. - UnbelievableError (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, interesting, I hadn't noticed that. That wasn't a bad decision, but would have been better to let an admin handle it. That's why we get paid the big bucks. Thnaks for pointing it out.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Kenny Warren Permissions
That was fast. I just sent you the email!!!!!!!!!! I have a few more coming on other articles I just need to sort through the dozens of emails that I have. --Morning277 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Removing CP day
At the moment it's done manually. What with the range of ways people deal with listings it would be very hard to get the bot to detect a day as closed without it getting it wrong on a regular basis. It's also not unknown for someone not well versed in copyvio, even the copyvio introducer, to use a CPC template to make it appear that a listing is done even when it probably still needs checking. In short I think we still need human eyes for this bit.

I don't think we need any sort of "normal" archiving as each day page serves as an archive. What I suspect would be useful would be a custom search box on WP:CP. I'm travelling at the moment so won't have time to try to add one for a couple of weeks.

Finally remember to check the collapsed SCP listings before removing a day - that one's caught me out before! Dpmuk (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After I tried, I realized something I should have known before, the individual days stand on their own and are transcluded on the CP page, so I simply removed the transclusion. Thanks for the reminder about the SCV, I didn't think to look there - I did check for 18 May and there was one, but deleted. so I'll try to remember that in the future.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank-you, happy I could help.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Re; Litton
Check the link for Litton's personal homepage, particularly the bio page. Absurdist1968 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; glad to help Absurdist1968 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: CP listing
Stupid Firefox - lost my first reply when I accidentally clicked on the "Edit summary" link so this reply may be shorter than my original. If you turn on hidden categories you'll notice it's in "Pages where template include size is exceeded" and I suspect this is causing the problems (including the new listings not showing). The best answer to this would be to get the backlog down. As I'm travelling and not had a chance to fix the bot so that it knows about the very old listings sections simply moving listings there is likely to cause more problems than it solves so the only work around I can think of is to merge day listings into a single page while keeping the transcluded page name the same. Dpmuk (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have hidden cats enabled. So I'm guessing now that it is processing many templates, and runs out of something, and can't process the footer. Not a big deal, unless it means that adding a few really breaks it.


 * I'm going to ask at VPT SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS
Hi,is it possible for normal wikipedian to make an OTRS account? If Yes please tell the procedure. Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ϟ   19:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by normal wikipedian, but I'll guess that you mean one who is not an administrator. The technical answer is yes, it is possible to be an OTRS agent without being an administrator, and I think there are some examples, but those examples tend to be editors with five years of experience and 50,000 edits who have chosen not to become an administrator. If you read, you'll see it is not an absolute requirement to be an admin or bureaucrat, but the "read between the lines" message is, you'll have to have a pretty impressive resume if not.
 * I see that you have a little over a month of experience and 1000 edits here. do you have experience in other projects? My sense is that the expectation is years of experience, tens of thousands of edits, plus specific experience in areas such as the help des, or other areas which demonstrate how you deal with challenging situations. Ultimately, you can only become an agent by having enough regulars saying that you can be trusted. I'm not sure whether I've fully answered your question, please  ask again if I haven't.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood & satisfied with your answer.I'm not sure with the term viz. other projects,help des etc. but anyway will consult you later.Probably after having enough editing & other experiences.Thanks for the help 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ϟ   03:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By other projects, I mean the following - on occasion, someone will nominate themselves for admin yet seem to have only a few thousand edits on English wikipedia, but they then point out they have edits on the German wikipedia or commons or Wiktionary or some other project that contributes to ones knowledge of processes, but doesn't show up if you just look at their "local" experience. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm,yes i do have an experience in other projects also.I've some major edits on Hindi Wikipedia my user page is .In Hindi Wikipedia,i've created some articles related to Indian television,You can check.I hardly give my presence to commons.Eventually i must, first try to get some minor authorities like rollback, reviewer etc. then i should go for such a big responsibility(OTRS agent). But the problem is how to convince those users,who will give us these minor authorities. Thank You  25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ϟ   13:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CP
Could you double-check my results at Copyright problems/2012 May 27, to be safe? First time checking; I did five. I suspect that Pediatric Psychology may need to be deleted as well, as there have been close paraphrasing concerns since the beginning; didn't do that because I couldn't check the sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance for the help, I will check, but I am in a meeting at the moment, so not right away.

-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only had a chance to look at one so far Paulina Eliza Phelps, and after a mild panic when I saw a 13 word phrase duplicated, then, realized it was the exact name of of reference, so quite appropriate, I looked at the rewrite and it looks good. I'll spot check some others later.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So the panic struck you too (I had that same feeling). I'm tempted to bring the article to AFD, honestly, as notability hasn't really been shown. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have image permission
I have an email from a company, Peace Coffee, giving me permission to upload various images taken from their website and facebook page. They are aware that it is not being released under a "wikipedia only" license. Am I able to send that email to OTRS and upload those images or do they need to give permission directly? What is the process for gaining this permission? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, yes, you can forward it to OTRS. In some sensitive cases, we need an email from a particular party, but that doesn't seem likely in this case. Note one difference from what you might expect, you should upload first, then include the names of the images in the email (some people think, understandably enough, that they should get permission then upload. However, permissions is attached to images, so they should be uploaded first). -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I would upload with the license and OTRS pending and then the person who gets the ticket would take it from there, correct? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. OTRS timing is suboptimal, but OTRS pending tags help keep the deletionists at bay. I won't have time for the next few days, but if it doesn't get handled, drop me a note and I'll look into it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)