User talk:Sphilbrick

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Copyright violations on Chartered Institutes for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chartered_Institute_for_the_Management_of_Sport_and_Physical_Activity

Thank you for flagging the copyright violation. I agree with the removal. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website you flagged. This included infobox additions, a new section, and other text in the introduction not related to the vision/mission paragraphs.

I have reintroduced these elements onto the page. I will leave mission/vision absent.

COI on my profile. Happy to add elsewhere if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reece_at_CIMSPA

While it may not seem like the right thing to do, it is convention, when identifying a copyright issue, to do a rollback, which sometimes picks up other copyright issues and sometimes picks up inrelated,a nd non-problematic issues. You are always welcome to restore the non-copyright issue edits.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Article: World Square

Hi User:Sphilbrick I believe you have reverted my edits due to copyright however it has not all been copyrighted and I did spend hours on that article and it's not fair that my time was wasted due to copyright. Please make my edits on World Square in my userspace draft and explain to me where I went wrong as I will fix it all up and not make it copyrighted. Please do as I am currently angry about it. - User:BugMenn (talk)

@BugMenn: There is absolutely no reason to be angry. If you were a brand-new editor, you might be worried that your work would be lost, but that's a good reason to be a little concerned, not angry. You been an editor for four years, and while you still have fewer edits than many regulars, surely you've been around long enough to understand how a wiki works — specifically that almost anything done can be undone with a couple clicks.

If you read the notice on the top of my talk page, which was written with you in mind, you'd know that I occasionally make mistakes, but when those mistakes occur I happily and quickly correct them.

It looks to me like your edit used material from this site. you think that assumption is flawed, let me know. If you agree that you did use material from that site think it's properly licensed for our use let me know. If you think there's some other reason my removal was in error let me know. If you are right, it's trivial to restore your edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@BugMenn: I'd like to add two observations. First, your signature is malformed. I tried to figure out what's wrong with that but I did not figure it out. If you visit the WP:teahouse, someone will be happy to help you. fixing it is more than just a matter of cosmetics, when you have a properly formed signature, it is easy to reply to you but when it is not properly formed, it is much more work. Second, I see a lot of messages on your talk page but no evidence that you've ever seen any of them. I urge you to review the messages on your talk page. Many are years old and can be ignored but it's the proper place to have conversations about issues.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thanks for the tips but could you please revert back to my latest edit but remove the copyright content as it was not intended to be there. The unintentional copyright is just the Future section of World Square using the article this site. --User:BugMenn(talk) 17:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

BugMenn, When a copyright problem is identified as part of a sequence of edits, a process called rollback is use which undoes all consecutive edits. I did apply revision deletion to those edits, per policy. that does, as you may have noticed, undoes edits that are otherwise acceptable. I've temporarily remove the revision deletion so that you can recover any edits that are acceptable and redo them. Once that is done, I will restore the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thanks for reverting back the revision deletion. I have readded the information but removed the Future section where I accidentally did a copyright mistake. -- User:BugMenn(talk) 21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

BugMenn, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

History of African Americans in Philadelphia

Hello. I noticed you reverted the new info I was in the middle of adding to History of African Americans in Philadelphia that was sourced from this site for copyright violation. If you read the text I think you will find that I have changed the language substantially so as to avoid copyright vio. If there are particular areas where you feel the language still adheres too closely to the original, please let me know. I am continuing to edit as I find and add new info. This article badly needs expansion. Thank you. ABF992 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

ABF992, I did notice it wasn't word for word that I thought it was to close a qualified as Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Let me see if I can track down a comparison report. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

ABF992, Let's see if this works. Can you go to

this page

Click on the ithenticate report?

If you can see it, you will see that the text isn't exactly the same but it's closer than I think is acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I'll work on it and resubmit. ABF992 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

ABF992, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tysen Knight

Would you have a moment to look at Tysen Knight. It appears to have been copied word-for-word from here. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I agree, I nominated for CSD G12. The little puzzled I don't see it in Copy Patrol, but there may be a lag . S Philbrick(Talk) 20:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I also left a message at User talk:MER-C#Block, as this editor may be evading a block. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Locked out

Dear Sphilbrick,

I'm very sorry to pester you with this, but I can't seem to find a help window that addresses itself to this sort of issue. Maybe you can just direct me to a relevant party?

This is you old nemesis Beebuk (Pierrot?) again. I've had to change computers and, in trying to log back in to my account, I seems to have bungled things pretty hopelessly. Apparently Wiki recognizes only Rstorey as my true user name; won't let me use Beebuk (though it recognizes the latter as a new nickname), and I don't know how to retrieve my old identity. Do you have any idea how to untangle all this? As my (now-red) signature will show, Wiki recognizes "Beebuk" as a new contributor, not the old one.

Much gratitude for lending your ear and talents to this. Beebuk (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Rfstorey, Good to hear from you again. I'll look into it. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Rfstorey, Unfortunately, I think I have bad news.

You look at my user page User:Sphilbrick, on the left sidebar in the tools section, the sixth entry is:

Email this user

That entry doesn't automatically appear. The user has to specify a valid email address and go to preferences to turn the option on. You apparently did not do that. that would be helpful if you had forgotten which email address is associated with your account, which isn't what you said but it is a bad sign that you do not have the email option enabled.

I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that if you have a valid email address associated with your account but have not turned on the option preferences, I can still send you an email through another means. I tried that, and received the message:

This user has not specified a valid email address.

That is still only important if you are attempting to change your password. Occasionally people forget their password, and can request a password reset that can only be done you have a valid email address associated with your account.

If you don't have a valid email associated with your account, you can still login if you remember your password, although I don't think you'd be contacting me if that were the case.

You indicated that you changed computers. it is very possible that your old computer had your password stored so you could login that way, but if you change computers you need to recover your password.

As your old computer still working?

This is the site where people much more knowledgeable than myself hang out:

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

If you get lucky and remember your password, I urge you to change your preferences (I can help you with that.) If you don't recall your password, I don't think there's a way to reset it.

There is a process called Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. I was hoping it might be relevant but I just looked at it, and it might not apply to your situation.

I think you need to check with Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to see if they can help. Sorry I couldn't solve this myself. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I very much regret putting you through such extended commentary (and subsequent torture). It isn't really my password that seems to be the problem. (I wrote that down immediately after signing up on Wiki.) It's my user name. Wiki has it that that user name is Rfstorey, and I don't know how to change that. (I can't remember how I was able to register as "Beebuk.") But many thanks for the suggestions. I'll get in touch with the sites that you've mentioned, and eventually get it all untangled. Nice to be in touch with you again. Beebuk (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Oy vey! My wife--a techie genius--has solved the problem. Turns out, my password WAS the problem. Apparently, somewhere and sometime in a universe beyond my memory, I changed the password (for reasons also beyond my ken) and didn't record it. (I finally realized that the dots representing my saved password didn't add up to the password of my memory.) So my wife simply suggested we use the old, discarded computer to call up my old Beebuk account and ask to change the password. We did; received a temporary password; then devised a new, permanent one. Voila: Beebuk is back. Now IMMENSELY regret putting you through all that extended commentary . . . Thank you again for your saintly forbearance and patience. Beebuk 00:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Beebuk, Wow, glad that it all worked out. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle 4 Atlantis

Philbrick; You left a message about Battle 4 Atlantis url in January, looks like the move to South Dakota was for one year due to the pandemic, I updated the links looks like it'll be back in Atlantis for the 2021 edition. Bearcats fan (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bearcats fan, Thanks (I'm planning to go, which is why I was looking at it.) S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit reverts

Thanks for the help! Mazarin07 (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Article: Ryan Keberle

Hi could you explain what was in violation in the content i added? Why were all the edits deleted? Why not the specific violation you are referring to? thanks Mistephake (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistephake, I explained in the edit summary. It appears to be a copyright violation because your edit largely matched text at this site. Please ask if this doesn't answer your question. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I couldn't really find the reason from you explanation.But now i understand what happened. But what about the edits that were factual and all the cites i added from real sources like the NYT and WSJ? They weren't cut and pasted from another source. Can I not revert any of the content? Mistephake (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistephake, I noticed that you don't use edit summaries. I urge you to do so as experience editors almost always check edit summaries when considering actions. If you were a regular user of edit summaries that would have occurred to you to check the edit summary for my removal and you would've known the answer. You might still have reached out to me but at least you'd start with an understanding of what happened. It's our policy not not to restore information that subject to copyright, but if it will help, I can email you your edits. I am aware that removal of an edit due to copyright often removes other edits that are otherwise acceptable but that's the unfortunate nature of the way rollback works. Actually, it's a bit of an overstatement to call it unfortunate, as it is very often the case that when an editor includes copyrighted information in one edit, many of the other edits are problematic. That's not necessarily the case but it does justify why rollback is used in such situations. Let me know if you'd like me to email you the edits I removed. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is true i was lazy w the edit summaries today. I actually did check the edit history to find the reason why the entire page was reverted back before any of my edits. I appreciate the explanation. But it is added work for both of us and that just seems redundant. Sorry, I don't get it! Mistephake (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to review the edits that were deleted. I will redo the work but this time i will label my edits meticulously.Mistephake (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistephake, I do understand why it might seem inappropriate to use rollback, which undoes a sequence of edits when only one of the edits in question has been confirmed to be the copyright problem. However, imagine a sequence of 10 consecutive edits by an editor, the fifth of which is flagged as a potential copyright violation and confirmed by the reviewer. It might be the case that:

1. the editor intends the new material to replace existing material and some of the earlier edits removed the existing material
2. the editor wants to add some new material but believes it belongs in a different section so earlier edits move existing material to a new section
3. the editor adds some new material and edits subsequent to the addition make some changes to that material and adds some other material
4. the editor added material in several of the 10 edits, only one of which was flagged as a copyright problem but some of the others were also copyright problem
5. The editor added material in several of the 10 edits, some of which was written in the editors own words so thus not a copyright problem, but the addition of those words without the copyrighted text makes no sense in the flow of the article
6. The fifth edit of the editor is a copyright problem but all the other edits are acceptable and can be retained without interruption to the flow of the article

I have encountered all of these examples and more. Please note that only in case seven is it appropriate to simply remove the copywritten text. However, removal cannot be done with undo or rollback because it's not the most recent edit, so the reviewer first has to carefully confirm that case seven applies, then carefully find the problematic text and remove it. In all other cases, The review either has to spend a substantial amount of time fully understanding the flow of the article, what should be retained, what should be removed, and double checking for potential copyright issues in the non-flagged edits. That's a Substantial amount of work, and given that we get hundreds of reports every week with a tiny handful of volunteers to address them, it's not a workable approach. There is one person who can carry this out in much less time, and that's the original editor who presumably understands the flow of the article and is in a better position to determine how to correct the problem with the least damage to non-offending edits. That's why offer to email you the edits you made, so you can do the corrections. While it puts a little more of the burden on you, it is more efficient and the burden lies where it belongs.

If you can think of a better approach that doesn't require significant additional work by the reviewer, I am all ears. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

yes it makes sense now that you explain it. in this case the subject gave me permission to update the article and I wrote the copy to suit eligibility. I will email the previous edits if I can do it right...would it be for ex one of the edits in the history? ie: curprev 16:00, 8 March 2021‎ Mistephake talk contribs‎ m 17,519 bytes +336‎ →‎Career undo Mistephake (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistephake, I temporarily undeleted your edits so you can access any edits that were not copyright issues. I'm concerned that you mentioned you got permission from the subject. That is never necessary and if you are close to the subject, you need to read wp:COI as we want editors to be independent of the subject. There is no need to email anything to me. I was offering to email something to you but I decided it's easier to simply undeleted temporarily. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I was able to review my edits and I add new content using concise summaries and explanations for changing/adding. I removed a cite that was from a blog. the article is now up to date! Mistephake (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

To address your concern: No I am not 'close' to the subject. I am voluntarily editing articles to improve and advance the content for unrepresented musicians, many of whom have articles that contain misinformation, inaccurate timelines, etc. Mistephake (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistephake, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I learn so much every time I work on things and I really need to improve my wiki skills.Mistephake (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary color article edits

I just wanted to let you know that there is at least one problematic user who keeps adding nonsense color names to the Tertiary color article (example edit). The source being used is this page, which is not a reliable source. Could you keep an eye on the article? Bumm13 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bumm13, Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Showing up for Racial Justice article

Back in 2017 we had a brief conversation about this article and I just wanted to give you a heads up that I have made the case for notability on the talk page as a precursor to creating the stub. mennonot (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mennonot, Thanks for the heads up S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sulayman al-Mahri

Hello Sphilbrick, I am not surprised that the contents of Sulayman al-Mahri are in copyright infringement, but I think there is no need for the speedy deletion. I am not the article creator, as a quick look at the history of might have shown, and I will be happy to modify the contents to steer clear of copyright infringement. Please give me a couple of days to fix it. The original article, as "Sulaiman Al Mahri" had been there for quite a while, unnoticed, so I hope one or two days should be fine. Thanks. Desde la Torre (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Desde la Torre,

I did look at the article history and saw your edit is the only edit prior to mine, so I'm not following what you mean when you say you are not the article creator. If I detect a copyright violation within an existing article, and the problematic material can be removed, that's what I would normally do, but when the edit is the only edit to the article, deletion seems like the appropriate action. I must be misunderstanding something but I am not following your point so please explain. I will note that it is not our policy that copyright violations are fine if they are cleaned up within a few days. If they exist for even seconds, they should be removed immediately. If you want to start with copyrighted material and make enough changes to avoid copyright infringement (which, as an aside is not good editing), then you should do that off-line. Let me know what I'm missing so I can figure out whether there is a good reason to remove the CST tag. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, Sphilbrick! What Desde la Torre means is that he/she did a cut-and-paste move of Sulaiman Al-Mahri to Sulayman al-Mahri. Both were deleted by Primefac, but it seems likely/possible that the original page dating from 2009 preceded the external source and should be restored. Desde la Torre, that is not how to move a page, please don't do it again – it messes up the page history and can also cause other problems ... such as this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense to me. It also means it may not have been a copyright violation, but as you note, it was done improperly. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, really. Justlettersandnumbers got it just right. I had long time ago moved a page or two using the right procedure. This time I jumped the gun and made a mess. Thanks for your help, both, and sorry to waste your time.Desde la Torre (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hi Iam MfactDr. On Oromo Liberation Front page you reverted the whole contents that restoreed previously deleted by this IP adress 2601:184:417F:5620:C016:6831:9E10:1EF2. you mention good faith as I am doing wrong thing on this Oromo Liberation Front page. Please check this User contributions of deletion before make decision.MfactDr (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr, I did not miss that you were restoring deleted material. Restoration of deleted material often triggers a false positive, and I commend you for explaining that you were restoring deleted material in your edit summary. However, the original addition of the material looks like it could be a copyright violation because it includes material at this site which appears to be subject to full copyright. If that site happened to copy from Wikipedia, then their assertion of full copyright is in error, but I haven't seen evidence that this is the case. Can you provide a satisfactory explanation of why the source site asserts for copyright over material in the Wikipedia article? S Philbrick(Talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree some section of the page contain copy right materials that was plagiarised from OLF website. According to wikipedia policy copy right material should be removed it. I am not sure which user added copy right materials there. However I did response to deletion of whole contents with some of them well sourced and shouldn't been removed. Thanks for responseMfactDr (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

copyright materials that directly copied from OLF website is removed. Thanks MfactDr (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

MfactDr, While it comes as a surprise to some editors, it is standard procedure when encountering an edit containing a copyright violation to not only undo the entire edit but also consecutive edits by the same editor. There are good reasons for this, even though this process sometimes undoes the addition of useful information. it is also common, when doing a rollback involving a copyright issue, to do a revision deletion of the relevant edits which makes it difficult for the editor to access and restore the un-offending portions. I had a sense that something was a little out of the ordinary here, so I deliberately did not do the revision deletion at the time, giving you the chance to restore anything that would not be a copyright violation. I see that you have removed the copyright violation. If you don't need any of the prior edits any further, I will carry out the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright LSWR Class O2

I copied the page of the LSWR O2 Class W24 Calbourne and correctly ad attribution and if the Copy Right Problem is With What I have done. I must of Carried it over From LSWR O2 Class W24 Calbourne wich I do not Think has any thing wich is go agents Copyright Rules of Wikipedia. If it can you please tell me and can you Fix it Please.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I Like The british Rail Class 483, Attribution is required but simply providing attribution does not cure a copyright problem.

However, before discussing that in more detail, it sounds like perhaps you copied from another Wikipedia article. That is permitted but must be done in a very specific way to preserve attribution.

Please remember to identify the source of the material in your edit when copying within Wikipedia. I'll provide some standard information that might be relevant:

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding a link to the source and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. It is not too late to add the attribution. See Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Repairing_insufficient_attribution which explains how to do so.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

SphilbrickSorry I though that just Attribution was needed and at was it.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I Like The british Rail Class 483, If you copy from another Wikipedia article, attribution is all that's needed but it has to be done correctly as outlined at the link. Following the guidelines and including the information in the edit summary will help ensure that it does not accidentally get reverted. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick How do you do the attribution correctly? Can you use the LSWR class O2 please.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I Like The british Rail Class 483, I explained above and it is explained at the link. What I said earlier is "In particular, adding a link to the source and the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. " S Philbrick(Talk) 17:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

SphilbrickI did put the copy and look at the other page thing.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I Like The british Rail Class 483, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, why is that it keeps on get removed? If any thing can be done so the it still has the copied thing but with being removed?--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought that you explained to me you are copying material from another Wikipedia page. I shared some information how to provide attribution using an edit summary but I've looked at your edits and you aren't following the protocol. Frankly, I can't quite follow what you are trying to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion - re User:I Like The british Rail Class 483

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerned about a user's general behaviour. Thank you. — Nightfury 09:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio over at KWCM-TV

Yesterday afternoon, you left a message on my talk page stating that my edits at the Wikipedia article KWCM-TV were reverted as a result of copyvio from this Blogspot post. After you sent the message, I took a look at it and found that it was closely similar to the Iowa PBS article on Wikipedia. Can you please investigate? Thanks in advance. Marioedit8 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Marioedit8, Did you copy from Iowa PBS? If so, that's permissible, but you must comply with the guideline Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Marioedit8, Did you read the yellow box at the top of my talk page? If you did copy within Wikipedia, that text was directed at you. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey User:Sphilbrick, I decided to rewrite my earlier edit that was reverted on Wednesday. Can you take a look and see if it's a potential copyvio? Thanks again, Marioedit8 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Marioedit8, I'll trust you. If you shows up in CopyPatrol, and I see it, I'll review it. Thanks for informing me. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Agriculture in Turkmenistan

Regarding: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agriculture_in_Turkmenistan&type=revision&diff=1019274014&oldid=1019191821 I am unsure why you deleted content from this article that was not sourced from https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/centralasia/turkmen-geo.htm. The table of livestock product output was not sourced from that website, nor were the photographs, which came from my personal collection (I took those photographs during my tour of duty as a diplomat in Turkmenistan). I am also not quite sure what the copyright violation entailed, so if you could clarify that to help me avoid making such a mistake in the future, I'd appreciate it. Amustard (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Amustard, If an edit includes substantial copyright violations as well as some non-copyrighted additions, it is a general practice to undo the entire edit. In fact if it's one edit in a sequence of edits, the standard procedure is to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. Feel free to restore any edits that are not infringing. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thanks, I have restored the uncontroversial tables and photos that were deleted. I still am uncertain exactly how I violated the copyright. In the interests of avoiding making the same mistake twice, I'd appreciate a bit of clarity on what I did wrong. Thank you in advance. Amustard (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Amustard, Thank you.

As noted in my edit summary, material in your edit appeared to be too close to material at this page.

The CopyPatrol tool identified an 87% overlap between material in your edit and that page, which has "Copyright © 2000-2021 GlobalSecurity.org All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page. Does this help? S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

CCI update

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Carvin11 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Thank you for all of your early work on the case! We finally crushed it (and the socks) :) Sennecaster (What now?) 03:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Sennecaster (What now?) 03:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikilinks

Please verify them before saving your edits. Thanks! Wyliepedia @ 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

CAWylie, For example? (I add a lot of links, may have made a mistake, but this advice is worse than useless without an example.) S Philbrick(Talk) 12:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Example link to Samantha Smith. Wyliepedia @ 13:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

CAWylie, got it S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Samoa NNLs map

Template:American Samoa NNLs map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Just found you among my notices. How generous of you to comment! Hope you're happy and well these days! Beebuk 17:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Deleted the previous link in the article Velar/chettiar

I just deleted the article link in the page(Velar/chettiar). since I got a message from you regarding copyright issue.

Added new source in the article.

Kindly help me to publish this article in the wikipedia. Tamilan pugal (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamilan pugal, Thank you for understanding.

While this also the material was not subject to full copyright, the copyright notice did say it was limited to noncommercial use which is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (As an aside, this sometimes surprises new editors as Wikipedia is viewed as a noncommercial enterprise, but the goal of Wikipedia is to provide freely usable information including for commercial use so the noncommercial limitation created a problem)

I hope this will not dissuade you from working on an article about the subject but it must be written in your own words, with the exception that short sections can be directly quoted if properly enclosed in quotation marks and/or block quotes. That said, such quotations should be short, and not simply use to get around copyright but are excerpts that cannot easily or appropriately be rewritten. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Can you please remove the speedy deletion notification in the article.

When article will visible to the users?

Because I tried searching the keyword Velar/chettiar in the Google but it is not directing me to the article. Tamilan pugal (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamilan pugal, The article will not be found in Google until it has been patrolled and then visited by the Google robots. I think it has now been patrolled but you are focusing on the wrong issue.

I explained the problem with the use of the material from a source which does not have an acceptable copyright license. I see that you done some minor editing to cleanup some errors, but the bulk of the material is simply a copy and paste from the source.

That's not acceptable.

You need to completely rewrite it and if that occurs I will revisit, but my guess is you won't have time to completely rewrite it before it gets visited to see if it qualifies for speedy deletion.

At the moment it still qualifies for speedy deletion in my opinion, but I'll leave that decision to the reviewing admin. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violation on Cascadia (independence) Wikipage

Thanks for the notes! I hope this is the appropriate place to reply, as I'm still a bit new - or should I reply directly on my talk page? Anyways - I saw your note, but maybe I'm having confusion with what the copyright issue is. The sources linked - cascadiabioregion.org et al, are in the Creative Commons, share alike with attribution / non-commercial use. I read the Wiki Copyright information on the top of the page and it seems to be perfectly OKay per terms of use. What I meant by already cited - was that the cascadiabioregion.org is already used as a source in the article, so I'm just trying to figure out why this specific page is being treated differently. Also, there are quite a few different sources cited, so if you'd like to point them out, I'm happy to remove them or find creative common variations that are more appropriate, rather than moving the whole blocks of texts. Brandonletsinger (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition_reaction you really reverted all my work when i had everything cited??? Nickpayifson (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)nickpayifson