User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 58

RE; copyright violations on articles.
Please permanently delete the articles on the Kendall Wall Band and Pat Carey (musician) which I am the sole creator of and all images. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendall_Wall_Band, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician). This morning I found those two plus Gary Kendall on this site. http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Kendall_Wall_Band, http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician), http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Gary_Kendall It bothers me that as the creator of two of these articles it now falls on my shoulders (re: teahouse questions: wiki articles on other websites in whole) that I have had to contact AOL.com and send a wiki form letter to get these items set up properly where copyright violation exists. There is no doubt editors and administrators have a lot more experience with this then I will ever have. I am sending these articles (I created to the Canadian Encyclopedia where they will be protected against this sort of violation). Had I known wiki does nothing and has nothing in place to stop violators I would not have ever created either article for submission here. I only wish I could get Gary Kendall out but I did not create his article. I am walking away from wiki and will have nothing more to do with it due to this. T Heart (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that your Wikipedia experience is not going well. However, I haven't yet fully grasped the nature of the problem. Is your complaint that the material from the Wikipedia article now shows up at the Canadian site? (You do not need to ping me when posting on my page I get an automatic notification. I need to ping you so you'll know when I respond.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above articles I created plus Gary Kendall and who knows how many others are now on the AOL.com site above and according to what I am told in the teahouse are in copyright violation, which I was also told I had to deal with as I was the creator of two of those articles. Well it should be higher up than me deal with this. I believe aol.com is in the united states.If you click on one of those links I posted above it will take you right to it.T Heart (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now looked at the teahouse posting. As has already been answered anybody is free to reuse Wikipedia material (with some rare exceptions that do not apply in this case). They are required to provide attribution and perhaps they did not do that correctly., who is very knowledgeable in this area, suggest that the problem is the lack of notice rather than attribution. However, if they do the notice and attribution correctly they are free to make copies of the material. As was already pointed out there are hundreds of examples of sites where Wikipedia material is being copied and not all the i's have been dotted and the t's been crossed. There are also hundreds more where it is done correctly.
 * I understand you have requested deletion but I don't know on what basis. The possibility that some other site is copying the material and not providing accurate notice or attribution means the other site needs to comply. It is in an argument for removing it from Wikipedia which wouldn't remove it from that site anyway.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the letter I had to send to Aol.com this morning?? This should be an administrator deal with this: I am done. T Heart (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aol: I have noticed that you are making use of English Wikipedia articles as part of your website, http://ca.wow.com. Three examples are http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Kendall_Wall_Band, http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician), http://ca.wow.com/wiki/Gary_Kendall which includes material from the Wikipedia article “Kendall Wall Band", “Gary Kendall” and “Pat Carey(Musician)” which is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendall_Wall_Band, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Carey_(musician), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kendall. Wikipedia encourages the redistribution of its content. However, it is necessary to comply with the terms of our primary license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA 3.0). Failure to do so is a copyright violation. The text of the CC-BY-SA can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CC-BY-SA . That is the relevant legally binding document. Wikipedia also offers advice about how to comply with the CC-BY-SA 3.0. This can be found in detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights. In sum and substance, the important steps are to mention the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and provide attribution to the authors of the content, which is here the Wikipedia editors who contributed to the article. More specifically, at the bottom of every page that uses Wikipedia material, you should include text similar to: "This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article (put article name here); it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0" You should link the text "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" to a copy of the text of the CC-BY-SA 3.0. Also, you must link back to the original Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your cooperation.


 * Hey again . I'm sorry I'm not really understanding why the fact that third-parties are violating copyright makes you want to have content you contributed here deleted. This happens all the time on the Internet (unfortunately), whether you are licensing under a free license, or retaining full copyright. As an example, YouTube hosts hundreds of thousands of copyright violations, videos owned by others, videos with original creative content but copyrighted songs playing and so forth. This is no different than you uploading some content anywhere, and someone outsider coming along and ripping it of (well one difference you may be reacting to is that Wikipedia is so highly ranked on the Internet that it there's a lot of ripping of its content). It sucks, but I don't understand why you seem to be blaming Wikipedia for these actions of outsiders. In that regard, I can tell you that there is a part of your post that appeared to me to reflect a misunderstanding on your part. You are an editor, just like me. You volunteered your time. Hey, so do I; I am doing so right now. I am just another volunteer. I am an administrator because I was nominated to be one and accepted but I am not an employee. Wikipedia runs on our collective efforts, yours and mine. There is no copyright violation "department" because other than a tiny cadre of employees, Wikipedia is all a volunteer effort. Sure I know more about copyright because I volunteer to pursue violations, but this is not any "job" of mien or of admins; it's the job of us all. As to deletion, the very same copyright rules we've been talking about mean there is no right to have content deleted once contributed—the only right retained are under the licenses' requirement of attribution and notice of the license reuse oor distribution is done under. This does not mean it can't be deleted, but it's not as simple as 'ask and it shall be done'; there is no right to have it deleted, all rights over the content were given up under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL. You are certainly the majority contributor but others have edited these articles. But I do think CSD G7 is not a stretch. What do you think Sphilbrick?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been away in a meeting per couple hours but I've been mulling over some of these issues. I'll start by saying I totally agree with and support everything you just said. However, I predict it will not make Imasku happy, and I bet you don't think it will either. One issue is what control a volunteer has over content they contribute to Wikipedia. The slightly surprising (especially to new editors) but well-established answer is – not much. A second issue is why on earth do we ask volunteers to slave away to generate excellent content and then let others just appropriate it. The well-established answer is – that's really our mission statement. A third issue is what happens if someone else appropriates the content but doesn't follow the rules for attribution. The slightly odd answer is – they have to fix it but that burden is not on Wikimedia, the organization, or on admins or on any special department, the burden is on the copyright holder, the collective editors, to enforce the attribution rules. I think that's what really has Imasku upset.
 * And I'm now wondering if our official rule should be revisited. I'm personally fine with the fact that I contribute volunteer time to create something that someone else actually sells to make a profit (I know some aren't so happy) but can't I at least expect that if someone's going to make a profit off my work that I should get proper credit? And of course, that's the rule, but if they don't give me credit is the entire burden really up to me? Would it be fair to ask for a more aggressive response to those inappropriately using the content? Is this something where the foundation should contribute? I don't know I'm just raising questions but I can sympathize that Imaksku is quite stunned to realize that one some large corporation decides to appropriate their work no one at Wikimedia or Wikipedia will lift a hand to help.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wen Jun Hui's wiki
Why did u delete it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.164.55.132 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was tagged as a re-creation of an article that had previously been deleted. When an article is deleted because it doesn't meet our requirements, it is acceptable to start over with a better version, but if you simply repost the same version that was deleted it will be deleted again.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete entekrishi.com page
How you tell that it's an advertising content?

See the news articles came in leading medias and news papers http://entekrishi.com/blog/news-and-media/news-about-entekrishi-com-on-asianet-news/ http://entekrishi.com/blog/news-and-media/news-about-entekrishi-com-on-new-indian-express/ http://entekrishi.com/blog/news-and-media/1046/ http://entekrishi.com/blog/news-and-media/news-about-entekrishi-com-on-emerging-kerala-magazine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.162.143 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people are under the mistaken impression that as long as you do not say "please buy our product", it is an advertising. However, the term is broader than that and covers the text on that page. As a technical note, you included some links at the end, but most of the statements in the text were not supported by any of the references. A couple of the embedded references were YouTube, which are very rarely acceptable references.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  10:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

entekrishi.com
why deleted? Is it due to the Malayalam language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.46.139 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, see the section above.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Entekrishi.com article
We didn't see any word 'please buy product' in article because entekrishi.com is not selling any product or its not a cart. Portal is just for connecting buyers and seller to protect the farmers in kerala. Regarding the reference links: Read the text in news papers and hear the voice of each reference so you will understand the importance of our poral in Kerala. All were telling about portal's process and the success of the portal. Please rethink your decision and try to review the reference link with a langauge expert if you don't know the language. Don't delete the article due to your unawareness. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.109.207 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opening sentence suggest you didn't understand my point. I don't need to consult a language expert – nothing in the recommendation to remove it or my belief that that decision was right had anything to do with language. It is written in English and in English it looks to me like advertising. I don't think you understand what that term means. It is obvious you disagree with me so we will try an experiment. I restore the article I urge you to work on it quickly, as I predict someone else will reach the same conclusion. Please look into how to provide references in an article. As I stated before and you didn't seem to hear, you have references at the end of the article but none of these references are identified in the article itself so they aren't very helpful. You need to add references to the ends of sentences or paragraphs to identify which reference is used to support the material. That by itself isn't enough, but it ought to be done.As an aside I don't know how you'll know that I have responded. You haven't created an account so I cannot ping you to let you know that I've responded.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve Grand
Hi Sphilbrick. Thanks for moving Steve Grand (singer) to Steve Grand. Would you mind doing the same for the respective talk pages? talk:Steve Grand is currently a redirect to talk:Steve Grand (roboticist). Many thanks. - MrX 21:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That was supposed to happen automatically I'm not sure why it did not. I left the box check that said move the respective talk page. Can you be specific about what needs to be moved where?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked again and it looks right to me. Have you tried purging?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, another admin took care of it after I posted the above message. I'm not sure why the automated tool didn't take care of it the first time, but it's good now. Thanks again.- MrX 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * okay as long as it's fine I won't delve into what went wrong. If it happens again I'll look a little harder.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Charity Elliott
The reason game results for LMU and Portland State were included for Charity Elliott but not UC San Diego or Cal Baptist has to do with a Wiki policy. Wiki has a policy that places D1 head coaches records on the site. However they only record the D1 info, not D2, D3, or NAIA. The same thing applies in terms of assistant coaches. You won't see any coaching records for Mark Pope on his Wiki page until this season because he was the assistant at BYU, not the head coach. Cal Baptist and UC San Diego are both D2/NAIA, so no, I cannot go and add them in due to Wiki's policy. Bigddan11 (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded that your talk page-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware where the discussion page is myself or which policy it is. I deleted that info a long time ago. I'm aware of it because I had edited the Dave Rose page to include his JC coaching record, and it was deleted by one of the head mods here on Wiki with the response that the policy was only D1 head coaching records. If it had been another user I would have ignored it. However since it was one of the head mods, I don't question it. Bigddan11 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. I'll look into it further. I can understand that a coach who never coaches at the D1 level might not meet the notability requirement. That's likely in many cases. As an exception, I just created Barbara Stevens (basketball) who is a DII coach, and easily meets the notability standards. It would be quite absurd to have an article on a DII coach and decide to omit her coaching record. That said, if a notable coach had mostly a DI record, but it started in high school, I would expect mention of the high school years but probably not a year-by-year summary. Carrying this further, if DII should be mentioned but not high school, where do we draw the line? DIII, NAIA, community college, junior-college?
 * I'll see if I can find that discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 13, August-September 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
 * Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
 * Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
 * Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

File redirects
Hi! Why have you deleted a lot of file redirects today? This breaks old revisions of the articles in which the files are used by introducing red links in those revisions and looks highly inappropriate to me. It also looks like a violation of WP:FMV, which states that 'In most cases a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if the original name falls under one of the revision deletion criteria (purely disruptive, grossly insulting, privacy breaching, etc.).' --Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They were asserted to be uncontroversial maintenance. Perhaps it was in error. If I recall correctly, I saw a difference of opinion between you and the editor proposing the deletion. Can the two of you work out what should be done and if they need to be restored I'll restore them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, while I didn't check them all I did check one to confirm that there were no real links. It is possible I misread but it appeared to me that they were effectively orphaned.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, I just restored File:...And So It Goes.jpg. How was it being used? I understand the short-term need for a file redirect – if a filename needs to be changed you want to make sure you don't break links, but don't we have a bot which automatically updates these? I understand the need for permanent redirects to articles, but I'm not seeing why we would have permanent redirects to images.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no bot updating links, but I guess that the nominator checked that there was no article currently using the redirects. The problem is that Wikipedia also provides access to old revisions of articles, and old file names are in use there. Redirects are cheap and deleting them just introduces red links in the article history. WP:R only mentions file redirects at one place, where a user is quoted saying that deletion of file redirects is 'extremely user-hostile and makes the project less useful'.
 * The redirect you mentioned is used in for example Special:PermanentLink/530592326. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed where Brion VIBBER threatened to desysop me. I need to do a little more investigation including a discussion with the editor who propose them for deletion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Restoration ✅ (Except for File:...And So It Goes.jpg which was renominated and deleted by someone else)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

G6 on File Redirects
Seems there was a difference of understanding. Restore the redirects as I am not going to argue with Stefan2/4. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also if you have the time it would be reasonable under the circumstances to restore the deletions carried out by User:Rhaworth on the same rationale, namely that G6 doesn't in fact apply. However, I don't want to start an unintended wheel warSfan00 IMG (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File talk:Clube Oriental de Lisboa.png
Please un-delete the version of File talk:Clube Oriental de Lisboa.png that you deleted on 01:48, 4 September 2014 and history-merge it into the new page I just created, then ping me. I will merge the contents. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite, although I already have a commitment.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

editor Waldorfbp
Hi, i noticed you tried to get through to non-responsive editor in 2014, at User talk:Waldorfbp. The editor is making obtuse edits that put in place directory-type information at List of mosques in the United States, over objection of myself and at least one other editor (, without responding at Talk page of article or their own Talk page (except a minimal response or two that did not address any part of the discussions). The current preferred version of the list-article (i.e. last-edited by myself or Peaceworld111) is not super-great but it has largely responded to criticism of the page in a past AFD, by removal of the directory-type info that Waldorfbp keeps restoring, and applying an evolving definition of list-item notability for this list.  Also Waldorfbp does not respond to questions why are they removing all photos and all good links to existing mosque articles, by their edits.  It amounts to a slow edit war, showing a slow wp:battleground-mentality.  As far as I can tell, the user has contributed minimal value to Wikipedia in stub articles about Pakistani power plants along with copyvios on the way, and has never accepted others' socialization-type advice towards their editing within Wikipedia standards, including the standard to discuss content issues with other editors. Perhaps their English skills are poor but that is no excuse, it would amount to them not having the competence to edit in Wikipedia. I am willing to be patient and try to help this editor begin to contribute productively, but they have to respond.

I am not sure what etiquette is in situation like this (have not looked up guidelines for blocking), but my impression is that behavior like this warrants imposition of a block and if the behavior returns then imposing longer and longer ones. Basically to get their attention and direct them to participate in discussion towards consensus at Talk page. It's not a "hot" issue so getting the attention of many admins at wp:ANI would seem like overkill, though I could go there if you think that is best. Could you possibly please consider this and impose a block or take other action?

sincerely, -- do ncr  am  17:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite ready to block, although I am quite discouraged about the editors unwillingness to engage in talk page discussion. I left a note on their talk page a few minutes ago. I plan to monitor their edits but please don't hesitate to ping me if they continue to edit inappropriately.
 * Regarding List of mosques in the United States. I hope not to have to fully get up to speed on the editing history but it looks like it it is not in a good state. If you are reluctant to revert because it may be viewed as edit warring please identify a version and I will restore to that version and we will see if we can start from there. Or you can revert but if you do let me know because I want to warn the editor that if they attempt to restore the article with out first discussing it a block will ensue. The editor may be confused about the distinction between list of mosques and list of notable mosque, a very common misunderstanding of newish editors.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd restore it to the last version edited by me, of yesterday, I'd appreciate it. Although it is not great, that is a decent version that includes items just for mosques that have a separate article, or have sources included, or have a commons photo (instead of being merely a directory list of all Muslim worship places with no support).

I don't think you need to immerse yourself in the history of the article. Briefly there was Articles for deletion/List of mosques in the United States about it being merely an address-list-type directory in July 2014, after which I started to improve the article, having previously only added a navigation template back in 2013. Waldorfbp built up the address list from June 2014 onward (and perhaps earlier as an IP who edited there) and did not participate in the AFD. My attention was brought back to the article on Oct 7 ago by a ping from the Talk page. I am indeed trying not to confuse the editor with any appearance of edit warring so in fact after restoring the decent version once on Oct 7, which the editor reverted, then i self-reverted my next restoration on Oct 8 and obtained Peaceworld111's performance of a restoration on Oct 12 instead. Another disturbing aspect of the edits there is that Waldorfbp has used edit summaries terming my & others edits as "Vandalism" which they are clearly not, and which they have continued doing since that was pointed out to them at their Talk page. -- do ncr  am  19:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored to that version. I understand you don't appreciate being labeled the vandal but please understand that I know better, the editor does not, and I will not let it continue.

reference oops
On Dawn Staley, Edna Campbell, Katy Steding, Sheryl Swoopes, Sylvia Crawley and Tari Phillips, you edited a reference and caused an oops. I think I fixed it, but could you check. Bgwhite (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for catching that. Took me a few minutes to track it down but his what happened in case you care. I checked at the village pump for some help with some code to do a search and replace. One editor provided code that should work. Another editor warned me that it might fail if the cite web template had an embedded template. Because I had created all the references I was fairly certain that wasn't the case. What I forgot was that in 1995, the USA basketball organization created some articles but misspelled "twelfth" as "twelvth". I decided to retain the spelling but added a template to note that it was misspelled. I totally forgot about that. It only affects 1995. I guess I'll have to go back in change the coding to look out for embedded templates just to be safe even though I'm pretty sure that's the only case it happened.
 * I see it affected some others as well, I'll fix them.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It also affected:
 * Molly Goodenbour
 * Carla McGhee


 * It potentially affected Tara VanDerveer, but I changed the reference in that article manually.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Can you be a bit more explicit? I don't see an article called Upper Tamakoshi. That turns out to be a redirect to Upper Tamakoshi Hydroelectric Project. I don't see any signs that you or I have edited either one.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it is the former here, remember this one? SwisterTwister   talk  18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, we never restore material deleted as a copyright violation. The may be some exceptions — I vaguely recall doing a restoration like that in the last few months but I forgot what the rationale was. The material was copied from here. Does that give you what you need?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Goodenough College
I note that you gave an OTRS on the talk page, but this does not work because (a) the template gives a single link to two web pages (b) the web pages are out of date. Could you fix this? Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a technical note, I edited the tag so that there are two links rather than the single link. However, each of the two links leads to a 404. I did a cursory check at the Internet archive and did not find that either have been archived.


 * However, my thinking is that this is not a problem. The main reason for adding the tag and the link, is to let people know that if they find that text in the article seems to match some text they can find online it is not a problem because permission has been given. If the text cannot be found, then no one is likely to raise a copyright challenge.


 * I did a very cursory search to see if some of the text would show up in a Google search, on the chance that the site was moved and I might find it in such a search. That didn't seem to happen. While there are other sites with the same texts, they appear to be mirrors or scrapers of Wikipedia content.


 * I don't think there is a need to contact the providers of the permission to update the links unless we run into a situation where someone is concerned about a copyright violation, after identifying a match or close match with some other location.


 * Let me know if you think my rationale is flawed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Editing the tag to join two URLS will automatically give a 404. I think this is confusing, and two tags would be better.  As I understand it, it is the lists which have been copied with permission rather than the main text.  However the main text is uncited and so far as I can determine is some rewording of copy and paste from the old website.  I am not happy with this on any account as it is from the subject of the article, not an independent secondary source. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the nature of the edit I made. It may well be the case, and indeed, it appears to be the case that attempting to access a website using a concatenation of two URLs with a comma in between will generate a 404 even if the individual URLs are valid. For that reason I added a space, so that the tag would have two distinct URLs rather than one malformed one. However, it remains the case that each of the two URLs now returns a 404.


 * I added the original tag in 2012, almost 3 years ago. I may have looked at each of the links, but I have no current recollection of what material in the article if any the sources were supporting. It is my belief that this is not an issue that needs to be resolved. If the article uses text which came from a website it needs to be cited. That is true whether or not a permission statement is provided. The main point of a permission statement is to avoid the possibility that someone rejects the text as being a copyright violation.


 * There's nothing wrong with challenging the Profile section and the early part of the history section to note that the material is unsourced. I think you should challenge it. The existence of an OTRS tag indicating that some text has been included with permission does not absolve the editors of the article from the requirements of adequately sourcing material.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 02:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 13:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)