Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dpmuk (talk | contribs) at 14:02, 31 August 2018 (→‎File:Picc-vic line map.jpg: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


TheoNoli

Hi Sphilbrick. I updated my Draft:Saint Kristo. Made everything in my own words and included citations. Is it good now? ~~TheNoli~~

Moving from your user page

User Digijio

Hi Sphilbrick. I see you did some cleanup of Digijio (talk · contribs) at Ratan Tata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Digijio had already been warned about copyrights on June 16, but has continued in at least three articles from what I've seen so far. Block? --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed to the ANI thread.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Ronz (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pajero edits

My edits were also reverted due to copyright issues, now the technical specifications are copied on every Pajero forum in existence originally posted on Outerlimits4x4.com by Frank Zanetti. We had them on most of our original forums way back, my friends and I have posted most of this stuff and reposted on newer forums just because it gets asked so commonly. These are just the sizes of brakes and axles from the factory service manuals, do i need to reformat how they are typed completely in order for them to stick because they're on all these forums? Still new at this but i'd like to also add that most of my other edits were deleted along with the specifications from the service manuals. Is that on purpose or just because i made those edits at the same time like changing Mitsubishi Jeep from successor to predecessor? If that's the case i'd like to revert to save the other edits, delete the specifications until i can figure out how to add them properly.

Thanks, Toasty Montero (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Toasty Montero: If you have copied technical specifications from service manuals into forums, have you arrange with the copyright holder of the factory service manuals for permission to post this information, or was it originally published with a free license permitting you to use it?
Even if this is true, I need to see evidence that the original source had an acceptable license or that you have been given permission in such a way that makes it compatible with usage in Wikipedia and even then we need proper attribution unless it turns out to be public domain material which I highly doubt.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: I hadn't thought of it like that, so at what point does something like this where the actual physical size of something can be posted in an acceptable manner? For example we already have engine cc, power output, wheelbase etc. Do we assume that info just comes from when the manufacturer was actively selling these machines? I would like to add brake and axle physical sizes to show the changes during the years. People ask me questions like what year got the bigger brakes or axles. Could i add something like "With the addition of the 3.5 DOHC, drive train strength was increased by upgrading crown gears to 9.5" and axles to 31 spline." tucked into the main article? Or leave the sizes out and just state that brakes and or axles were upgraded? Toasty Montero (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good Points - I'll put together a response shortly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by mentioning that I'm still a little bit under the weather so I feel like there must be a simple response to your question but I'm not immediately recalling it. I'm going to ping two copyright experts to get more input.

@Diannaa, Crow, and Toasty Montero: The immediate issue is this edit (and a similar subsequent one). The broader issue is copyright of facts.

At one extreme, if one looks up the displacement of an engine and cites the value, that is a factual value and the original publisher of that value cannot keep someone else from publishing that value through the use of copyright (although they might be able to insist on attribution, and certainly we do).

At the other extreme, one could not simply post a verbatim copy of a factory service manual on the argument that it is simply a collection of uncopyrightable facts. That's partially true, because a factory service annual is not simply a table of values, it will contain prose sentences and paragraphs that show evidence of originality and could be written in more than one way. (I'm assuming but haven't verified that factory service manuals are typically not freely licensed.)

The issue is where one draws the line.

Imagine that the factory service manual has a lot of prose paragraphs but also includes a large table summarizing all of the numerical specs of a vehicle. I don't think we would permit the wholesale copying of that table (although I'm on shaky ground here), even though we would permit the extraction of any single value to post in an article. Where I become less clear is that while any editor can extract any one value and included in an article, if the editor includes a second value, are they still okay? I think yes. How about a third and a fourth and several more and then for convenience, arrange it into a table? It may be that the structure of the table itself is subject to copyright and if we extract the individual values and create a differently organized table we are okay but I'm not comfortable I know a definitive answer on this issue.

I do think that the actual edit which includes more than simply the numerical values, e.g. "rear leaf springs dropped everything now 3 link coils" has moved well beyond a pure copying of facts, but I would love some feedback on this issue.

This is hardly an original problem so I suspect it has been discussed thoroughly in some copyright forum and perhaps even within Wikipedia but I don't recall such a discussion. (I have been involved in notable discussions involving lists, and the issues are related but not exactly the same.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant pages are the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy page and the Wikipedia:Plagiarism content guideline. Simple lists of information that contain no creative content are not considered copyrightable. For example, a list of engine sizes available for a specific model of car does not contain any creative content and therefore does not enjoy copyright protection. Where there's been a selection of specifications formatted in to a table or list, you're starting to get into the area where the material is copyrightable, because the author has made choices as to what to leave in and what to omit. The formatting of a table could be copyrightable as well if it contains creative work. Prose descriptions contain creative content and are therefore copyrightable. For example the sentence 'With the addition of the 3.5 DOHC, drive train strength was increased by upgrading crown gears to 9.5" and axles to 31 spline' is copyrightable, and would have to be re-written in your own words if you've copied it directly from your source document. For example you could re-write it as 'The 3.5 DOHC has 9.5-inch crown gears and 31-spline axles, which increases the strength of the drive train over previous models.'
Here is a recent example that I worked on. Someone copied data from this or a similar media guide into a series of 67 Wikipedia articles about the Washington State football team. See pages 74–78 of the media guide for the tables that were copied unaltered to Wikipedia. These additions were tagged as being unacceptable copypaste and I agreed with that assessment. To resolve the issue, I formatted the data for each schedule as a table, filled out the abbreviations (e.g. changing "S.30" to "September 30" and "H" to "Home"). I re-ordered the columns a little as well. The case was a little borderline so I did not perform revision deletion. So this example gives you a little information as to what level of copying I consider acceptable – that is, not very much at all. Our fair use policy is very strict as well, which means we're not allowed to use quotations from copyright works where we can substitute freely licensed prose that we write ourselves. There's some further reading material and examples at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the general information. I'm familar with some of it, but not all. I hadn't seen the Purdue material or the Eikied study module, both of which are quite helpful.
@Toasty Montero: Regarding the specific question, I'd say you may be able to take the purely numerical values if you provide attribution but you cannot simply copy the material that is in prose structure (again assuming the likely scenario that the original document does not have a free license).--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SPhilbrick I knew you would be familiar with most of this but I wished to provide a comprehensive answer to Toasty Montero as well as provide general info for your talk page watchers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you very much! I've got this, I really appreciate the help and examples. I think i have a better understanding now.  Toasty Montero (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests

I'd like to request the undeletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combo Ninos, which you deleted per G13.

Also, could you please undelete Combo Niños as well? It was a PROD, and the deleting administrator is no longer an admin. Modernponderer (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Both  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Followup - Well, it was my intention to do both, and I actually thought I did both. However, as I looked through the history I see that the AFC page which was deleted as a G13, was moved to Draft:Combo Ninos, which in turn had been moved to Combo Niños, So my restoration of that last entry covers both requests, I believe. I still know that I clicked undelete on one of the intermediate steps so I don't know whether I have some unfinished business to clean up but that's not your concern.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, User:RHaworth merged the histories of the pages right after you undeleted them. So I think everything was done correctly here, unless there's something left behind that I can't see of course. Modernponderer (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would explain it. Thanks. (And thanks to User:RHaworth).--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heydar Aliyev Baku Oil Refinery

Looks like I failed to revdel the edits; thanks for doing it for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy to help, happy to see you at work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I commend you for taking the time to create a proper stub from what was mostly a copyright violation. I confess that when I see such a situation I normally propose it for CSD, but if you're willing to take the time to clean it up more power to you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that only that section was copyright violation, and left the rest intact after some checking, but may be I should have indeed a closer look. The subject is notable, and likely is described also in some Russian-language sources which I can read and many people around can not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Academic Press

Sp, hoping all is well...I can't remember if it's OK with A7s or not, but if possible, can you userfy this for me? Might be able to do something with it...is that OK? Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: See User:Serial Number 54129/Sussex Academic Press--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I'll ping you to give it the once-over before moving it to main space (actulaly, I just found smething else to do, so migt take longer than intended). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VPI?

I assume you meant WP:VPI here? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. Thanks for noticing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for ya

Hey Sphilbrick! Would you be willing to help me out? I am working with the Emporia State University photographer with photographs for administrators and coaches that have articles here. He has uploaded several and are awaiting OTRS... would you be willing to look them up? They are Image 1, Image 2, Image 3, Image 4, Image 5, and Image 6. He uploaded all images. Thanks, Corky 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: I'll look into it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found and processed 4, still looking for image 1 and image 5.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more.
I did not find one for David Cordle.
I see that several permissions statements were sent in (for future use, it is acceptable to identify multiple images in one permission statement, as long as the license is the same). Someone merged the six entries, but one had just a footing comment and no content, presumably the David Cordle one.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, sir! I am guessing they used the Wikimedia OTRS release generator (not sure if you can add multiple photos or not, and I doubt if they know). I will let them know about Cordle's image and see if they can re-send it. Thanks, Corky 21:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: That's a good point. I think you can use the release generator for multiple files, but I think it's mildly tricky, so my guess is they uploaded one at a time, used the release generator for each one and one of them hiccupped.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: David Cordle now resolved. There was also an issue involving Seth Wheeler but I believe it has been resolved. Keep up the good work.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! They should be uploading three more soon (hopefully by the end of the week). I recommended them to just email the permission for the other three files with the same ticket number, that way it causes less trouble! Thanks for your help! Corky 15:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, using the same ticket number will help, as it will pop up on my list. I'm traveling for a few days, but give me a heads up if it isn't handled promptly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Hope you don't mind me asking, what was the issue with Seth Wheeler's image if you're able to tell me? I am mainly wanting to know if it was communication on my part or the photographer's... enjoy your travels! Corky 22:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal. Some enthusiastic editor found the image online and tagged it as a copyrvio, but I removed the notice immmmediately after processing the permission.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, perfect! Good to know it was just that, thanks! Corky 00:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sphilbrick. One last request for you dealing with the same ticket number (#2018071710006756)... File:Jory Collins.jpg, File:Toby Wynn.jpg, and File:Craig Doty.jpg. Hopefully they used the same ticket number (as I suggested), but I'm not sure! Thanks, Corky 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Corkythehornetfan: It's actually three different ticket numbers but I found them all and processed them all. Thanks for the heads up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VNIIFTRI

I deleted the direct copy text on VNIIFTRI.
What else needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VickHard (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@VickHard: I addressed the Revdel. No opinion on remaining issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]]
Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!]]


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

OTRS question

Hi, Sphilbrick! At Michael Avenatti you recently removed mention of his child per an OTRS request. [1] Did that OTRS request say anything about his marital status? According to many sources, he and his wife are divorced or divorcing. Most of the sources are unreliable, Hollywood-gossip type blurbs, but it was also mentioned at Fox News. I’m not going to make any change to the infobox based on these sources, but I wondered about the OTRS. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Unfortunately, there are limitations to what I can say without asking permission, but I don't think it is out of line to say that the OTRS email included no reliable sources, so couldn't be used to make any additions to the article. I'll also add that there was an OTRS email, and I did remove a mention, but the removal was my decision, not the request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks anyhow. I know you have to request the privacy of OTRS material. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Cheyne

The copyright issue is rather strange. I am the copyright owner of this work The Spiritual Side of Samuel Richardson and am a specialist (Ph.D) on George Cheyne. I felt the need to correct some mistakes and add extra information. I really do not want to have any conflicts whatsoever and really would very much like to continue my edit on this page. Best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanengerda: Thanks for contacting me.
As you are no doubt aware, the document is clearly marked as follows:
© G.J. Joling - van der Sar 2003
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without written permission from the author.
If you are the copyright holder, you can provide a free license for the material which would allow it to be used in Wikipedia (with respect copyright issues — I'm not commenting on reliable source issues).
You can read more about how to arrange for this here:
Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re ping @Hanengerda: --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. I am slightly confused now. I am not really using parts of my book or reproducing it. I am merely giving the source so as to make verification possible for third parties, just as I am mentioning other books such as the one by Anita Guerrini. Anyone may use texts from my book (and my articles) as long as they quote my book (and the articles) as the source. Hanengerda (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanengerda: Your edit inlcuded the following:

Cheyne received a classical education, being at first intended for the ministry. However, on the advice of Dr Archibald Pitcairn, Professor of Medicine at Edinburgh and chief representative of the so-called iatromathematical school of medical science, which drew close analogies between the human body and a machine, Cheyne went to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. During these years he may have spent a brief time in Leiden


Page 36 of the book has the following passage:


He received a classical education, being at first intended for the ministry. However, on the advice of Dr Archibald Pitcairn, Professor of Medicine at Edinburgh and chief representative of the socalled iatromathematical school of medical science, which drew close analogies between the human body and a machine, Cheyne went to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. During these years he may have spent a brief time in Leiden

Does this help? --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to bring your attention to MOS:QUOTE, and Wikipedia:Quotations. Wikipedia does allow quotations of copyrighted material but the quotations must be short, clearly marked (quotation marks or set off in block quotes) and properly attributed. While I don't think we have a formal rule on length, we generally insist on shorter quotations than many other publications permit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your examples. I do sincerely hope that the changes we have made are now acceptable to Wikipedia. Best regards, Hanengerda (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
== Regarding article- Larger Pacific striped octopus ==

You reverted all my edits on this article on a single click without even verifying all the edits. You cited "https://www.futurity.org/octopus-behavior-982652/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=taboola&utm_term=sciencealert" for the copyright issue. But, the fact is only some part of the article was "copied" as such, otherwise my other edits were written and researched by me. What you did is so 'mean' that it discourages me from editing Wikipedia further because the revert that you did took you not more than few minutes, but it took me five hours to jot down the whole work with its exact sources. You might be an "Administrator" but you are definitely not a good one because you easily overlooked my work, which cost me hours. Thank you for making me realise that no matter how good we try to be, there will always be mean people like you. Suman chowdhury 22 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suman chowdhury 22: I try to spend a few hours working on potential copyright issues every day. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every month, and it takes quite a bit of time to handle each of these.
Some of these are what I will call "clean". An editor copies some material from someplace into a couple in a single edit and makes no other edits to the article at that time. If we catch that before any other editor has edited the article, it is fairly straightforward to roll back to the earlier version, and then do a revision deletion on the edit involving the copyright violation.
In other cases, the situation is not quite as clean. The editor may have made only a single edit but it incorporates some copyrighted material and some written in their own words. It may also include some straight and some of the material which has been loosely paraphrased which total counts as a copyright violation. I copyright software is very good at detecting straight copies and it doesn't okay job of detecting some loose paraphrasing but it's not as good. Rather than spend a considerable amount of time deciding what part of the edit is a straight copy, what part of the edit is a close paraphrase and also a copyright violation and what part of the edit is original wording from the editor, it is our general practice to rollback the edit. If there was some material that was not a copyright violation, the editor is free to add it again if it works in context.
More problematic are situations where an editor makes a series of edits. Sometimes, an editor will make an edit including material from a copyrighted source, and follow that up with a series of additional edits reworking the added material. In that case, it would obviously be wrong to undo only the initial edit. In other cases, the editor may make an edit including material from a copyrighted source as well as some other edits material in their own words. While you might prefer that we remove only the edit including the copyrighted material, it is very possible that the subsequent material builds on that and makes no sense standing alone. Is quite time-consuming to sort out from a sequence of edits exactly which ones involve copyrighted material, which ones involve noncopyrighted material but would make no sense if the copyrighted material is removed and which ones involve no copyrighted material but might be okay if left in. We simply don't have the time to do this type of in-depth analysis on a regular basis. For that reason, it is our practice to use rollback. In other words, if the sequence of edits includes at least one clear copyright issue, rollback restores the article to the state prior to the first edit.
I'm quite aware that the use of rollback can, and does occasionally undo some otherwise acceptable edits. In your particular case, you made a sequence of nine edits, three of which were tagged as being copyright issues. I think I am justified in using rollback even if only one were tagged but the fact that three were tagged makes this clear situation where rollback is appropriate. (In fact, it just occurred to me that when I did the revision deletion I only picked up the most recent copyright so I'll go back and expand the revision deletion).
I am truly sorry that our approach to managing copyright issues may have undone some acceptable edits. However, while that may result in a wastage of your time, I don't think it's fair to suggest that editors working on copyright issues should triple the time they spend analyzing potential violations in order to save a few minutes in a few cases. I do understand that it can be discouraging to see a fair amount of work wiped out. I hope you can also appreciate that if Wikipedia fails to aggressively remove copyright violations the entire project is in danger. If you don't commit copyright violations, you won't lose your work. (As an aside, I continue to be astounded that some editors apparently spend hours in an edit window and don't compose edits off-line. Which is happened, and I've heard of editors losing hours of work because they didn't use an off-line editor. Is it truly the case that you did five hours of work and did not save any of it off line?)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not save even a single byte of my content in off-line mode. Maybe, that's my mistake. Perhaps, it is even a bigger mistake to have considered about contributing to any article.Suman chowdhury 22 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suman chowdhury 22:As a serious question, put yourself in my shoes and imagine that you saw a sequence of nine edits, three of which were tagged by our copyright software program as being copies. How would you have handled it if it was your responsibility to address the problem? I truly mean this as a serious question. All of us who carry out administrative type functions tend to develop a process over time. It is always wise to question those processes if they are not optimal. On several occasions in the past, someone has pointed out that a process I used could be improved, and I strive to do so. I'm more than one occasion I've modified a process to reflect legitimate issues. If you can identify ways to improve the process, I'm listening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BIOS

I'm confused why you reverted me on BIOS (here). My edit was a cleanup of some vandalism by an IP that has repeatedly blanked huge hunks of the article with no explanation. Similar huge removals by another IP on the same ISP in India were reverted on June 4 by @Oshwah: (see this edit). It seems to be pretty clearly disruptive/nonproductive editing. Am I missing something here? --Krelnik (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krelnik: I'm as puzzled as you are.
Our copyright detection software catches a lot of things, but sometimes it has a false positive, especially in the case of reversions of unexplained removals. however, I specifically recall looking at your edit summary, and agreed that no action was needed. In fact, I just double checked the log and I marked it as "no action needed". Whenever I do a rollback, I always, always leave an edit summary and the edit summary there is the default when you don't enter anything, so the only thing I can imagine is that I accidentally clicked rollback and didn't realize it. Sorry. And thanks for raising it politely. It isn't even the case that I misread the situation and accidentally rollback I still am not quite sure what happened but I undid my edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, when I see something I don't understand, especially when there are admins involved, I figure some sort of cleanup might be going on that I hadn't heard of or whatever - never hurts to ask. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more followed that rule.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W2O Group

Hi Sphilbrick. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at some changes I suggested on the Talk page here on an article where I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

I did not know that was considered copyright infringement. The game does exist. I thought it would be okay to do a page about it and I'm sorry about all this. Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it's for the best not to create the page for that. If creating a page may cause copyright issues, then I have no further business creating any page. I think I'm done for a long time. 😭 Kristie Ann Webb (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many new editors make similar mistakes. It is easy to cure. Write in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Technologies

I reverted your change to Smart Technologies. I did this solely because the old logo was public domain while the new logo is a fair-use image. You may have good reason to prefer the fair-use image instead. If so, I'm happy to have that discussion. Just ping me! --Yamla (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: The old logo may be public domain but it is not the current logo. I understand the preference for a public domain over a fair use image if the two are identical but when one is the wrong image and the other is the right image, I'd say the fair use image, which is the current one, is better.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm... not certain. But you make a sufficiently convincing argument that I'd be happy to have you redo your change. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I'm not certain either, but the logo I added was provided by the company, after noting that the pd logo was not the currrent one and asking for help fixing it, so the odds are in my faovr. Can you do the revert?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. --Yamla (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the discussion. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

added Sro23
readded KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you (I realize that as an experienced editor you already know this). Abecedare (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

When I upload an image, are the rules for doing so here the same as at Wikimedia commons or are they different?? I have photos i want to add to an article on video games that I took at E3 a few years ago and I am afraid if i upload it someone will delete it unfairly. thanks JC7V-constructive zone 05:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: There are some differences but the differences mainly relate to fair use images. It sounds like you are talking about photos you took and presumably are willing to freely license. That case the rules are the same with the exception that such photos belong at Commons so they can be uploaded to Wikipedia but they will be tagged and moved to common so it's better to start by uploading to Commons.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of recent contributions to Michael Okpara University page

Please, I will be more grateful if you can enlighten me on the copyright issue for the recent deletion of my contributions to the aforementioned page. In other for me to improve in my editorial skills. Barolove (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barolove: Click on "view History" to see the edit summary> (Reverted good faith edits by Barolove (talk): Copyright issue re http://mouau.edu.ng/about/historical-background. That identifies the copyrighted source which closely matched your edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope I can still edit it by modifying the wordings to be a bit different from the original source and acknowledge the source of information.Barolove (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barolove: A "bit" different is not enough and is called Close paraphrasing, still a problem. It needs to be written in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please you know there are some terms/words that cannot be changed when used by another person, for example, College of Education, College of Natural Sciences as were used. I will be glad if help me to recast such words/statements or preferable show me the way(s) to recast them. Thanks Barolove (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barolove: A 3 word phrase is not a problem, Check out this comparison.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: just tried viewing your suggested page "this comparison", but after registering, I noticed that I have to pay some token before accessing any relevant information in the page. Thanks for your kind gesture so far, I will recompose my former edits before posting them. Barolove (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barolove: You shouldn't have to pay anything. If you cannot see it, the main point is that there are duplicate phrases much longer than 3 words. Also, you do not have to ping me, I automatically get a notice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verastem

Hi can you please check my response to your "speedy deletion" mark of the article Verastem? I believe that was erroneous as the language you found was a full study name which I had to use exactly as it appears on various posters and scientific pubs. Dolcevikasf (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolcevikasf: I responded there, but on the chance it gets deleted a copy my response here:
The issue isn't the title of the study. The third paragraph of the article, the 64 word sentence starting with:
"Verastem Oncology's New Drug Application (NDA)..."
Is an exact copy of wording found here--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The language <copyvio redacted> is from an officially approved corporate PR boilerplate. Verastem PR wrote it, approved with Legal and Regulatory committee, and provided to all media sources. That's why Public now uses this language, and every single press release does too. I unfortunately cannot re-write corporate boilerplate and have to use exact same sentence. It is used on LinkedIn as well as other corporate profiles. https://www.linkedin.com/company/verastem/ Beauty of Pharma industry. If you see a potential solution - I'd be happy to explore. Otherwise, I need to leave this sentence as is. Thanks and let me know what else I can do to fix your deletion recommendation. --Dolcevikasf (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) What rubbish! "Corporate boilerplate" is precisely the stuff we do not need on Wikipedia. What else you can do? Out comes my usual mantra: wait until someone who a) has no CoI and b) is capable of writing an article without including corporate boilerplate, thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolcevikasf:It is quite understandable that an organization might wish to carefully craft some wording describing the organization and encourage writers choosing to write about the organization to use that exact wording.However, there are two problems associated with using that word. The first is that no evidence has been provided that the organization has released the words under a free license. Without that, it is still technically a copyright violation even if "everybody knows it's okay to use the words". The first problem could be cured with a free license but I don't encourage that because that would not resolve the second problem. Any set of words crafted by the organization, however well-intentioned, are by definition crafted by the organization and not independent of the organization. Our goal is a neutral, independent write-up of the organization (assuming it qualifies as notable). While the official words of an organization are to be reviewed by any editor, a properly written article will look at descriptions of the organization as crafted by independent writers, and put together a new description (not a copy of any one of the descriptions) to use in an article.
Editing of Wikipedia is both easier and harder than some people imagine. It is easier in the sense that many new editors are astounded that they can literally click "edit", add some text and save, and in seconds, they have contributed to a well-known encyclopedia. It is harder sense that some people find how technically easy it is to add text, and then do a casual search of the Internet, find some relevant text and decide to add it. The actual process of doing some research, reviewing multiple independent sources, and then writing from scratch, original wording to reflect what sources say turns out to be much more challenging task than copy-and-paste or lightly paraphrase.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so was the page removed - I cannot find it at this point. I will need to submit the re written sentence to Legal for approval. Can I find the page in the drafts somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.24.42.57 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be blunt but it appears you are not comprehending the advice the two of us are providing to you. You do not "need to submit the re written sentence to Legal for approval". Wikipedia is written by independent editors. If you are associated with the company you shouldn't be writing the article. If you are not associated with the company, there is no need to interact with their legal department. The organization does not have the right to approve or disapprove the language.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is not exactly accurate as wikipedia is full of language taken from corporate boilerplate sources. I have no problem re-writing the article myself and rely on independent sources. However, please take a look at any company page including facebook, google, IBM or Genentech, and compare it to their publicly available corporate brochures. You'd be amazed. Your advice only goes as far as how much you are willing to scrutinize the source. Dolcevikasf (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolcevikasf: I'm not quite sure what I said that you think is not accurate. If I said there is no boilerplate in any Wikipedia article, please point it out and I will remove that claim. I and several other volunteers spend many hours each day searching for newly added boilerplate and removing it. I can link to literally thousands of articles where this has happened. That said, when you are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is inevitable that some will slip through. If you point out an example, I'll remove it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw corp bs on Netflix page. Will find the language and let you know. That said, I did not keep a draft of the page you deleted, and now lost the references. is there any way to get the draft? Or at least references? It took me a while to comb clinicaltrials.gov site to find the corresponsing trial numbers... Dolcevikasf (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolcevikasf: Email sent.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
got it thank you! Dolcevikasf (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Turner

Hi,

Now that she’s apologised for falsely accusing him of a crime (automatic libel in the UK) it is definitely noteworthy; the Wikipedia article on The Times mentionsits journalists who had libel issues. I trust the addition now stays.Alterrabe (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Draft: Jeff Hunt (music producer)

Hi Sphilbrick,

I've been notified of another speedy deletion of content, though the material in question has been granted a Creative Commons license to use the material on the page in question, at https://jeffhunt.org/about/

Please do not delete as I am working with the artist in question, and he has granted creative commons rights to the passages referenced.

Thank you! Alaks Hovel 16:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talk • contribs)

@Alakshovel: Please see User_talk:Ronhjones#Jeff_Hunt_(music_producer)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are working with the artist in question, you should also read: WP:COI--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see my related comments at Draft_talk:Jeff_Hunt_(music_producer) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Philbrick, the page in question has been updated to read 3.0 Unported License. Are we good? Alaks Hovel 16:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talk • contribs)

@Alakshovel:Yes, with respect to copyright. There may be questions about use of that site and whether it qualifies as an independent reference, but I will leave that for others. Thanks for taking care of us I know it's kind of a pain, and I wish someone, not sure whether it's Wikimedia or Creative Commons would resolve the incompatibility which led to this problem but at least this specific instance is resolved.
FYI, I know the article has popped up at least once again in the CopyPatrol Report, and I accepted it, but it's possible that some other person will respond differently. The way the report is constructed it looks for comparisons of wording but doesn't and can't analyze the license so the reviewer has to affirmatively look for the license. That's supposed to be what happens, but I'm just giving you a heads up there's a chance it will be missed. Please ping me if that happens.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alakshovel, I've removed that content, as not appropriate to an encyclopaedia ("documents that dramatically rewrote the history of American minimalism"? Maybe so, but not here, thank you!). Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, not on what people say about themselves. Nor does Wikipedia tolerate WP:promotion of any kind, including that kind. If you want to write about Hunt, please start by making a proper paid editor disclosure on your user page and the talk-page of the draft. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband Commission Targets

Hi, you removed my section on the broadband commission targets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadband_Commission_for_Sustainable_Development&oldid=prev&diff=853106379&diffmode=source

It's actually licences under CC as is indicated on the page.

Would it be possible to revert this?

Bquast (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bquast: The site did an abysmal job of recording the copyright status. The entry at the bottom of the page where almost all copyright notices reside is:
© ITU and UNESCO
However, I now see they dropped a note in the middle of the page suggesting that some of the content not clearly identified is CC BY 4.0. I'll AGF that it applies to the material you copied.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sphilbrick: Agreed, abysmal job on that. Thank you for AGF and the revert. Bquast (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVPN - 1 more needed :)

Hello Sphilbrick, thank you for taking care of this copyvio issue. But the original insertion of this content (855911180) with + 1,107 bytes does need a revdel too please. GermanJoe (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Oops, missed it, thanks for the heads up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Rilum

Hi Sphillbrick and Greetings from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilum (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I found a draft Draft:4ocean and it had 44 percent copyright violations (text wise) according to Earwig's tool. I CSD'd it (not only for copyright but also for sounding like a company ad) it but the author of the draft twice reverted me. So i rewrote the draft, removing the copyright text and advertising tone and let the CSD remain removed. But maybe you can rev del all the revisions which had the 44 percent copyright?? I don't know if that's enough for a rev del and I know how copyright is a major issues. thanks JC7V-constructive zone 00:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JC7V7DC5768,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 00:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JC7V-constructive zone 00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018 at Women in Red

September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/91|Women currently in academics]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/92|Women + Law]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/93|Geofocus: Hispanic countries]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Check it out: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018|Monthly achievement initiative]]

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Titodutta (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AZDPS page

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback on our page. Our users on here are employed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and are responsible for the Department's website (azdps.gov). The information in question is content taken from our own website that we originally authored. How do we go about reverting the unpublishing of our Wikipedia content we attempted to post yesterday?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamesdps (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jjamesdps, There are two problems. Because you are closely associated with the subject you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI, which, in a nutshell, places significant restrictions on direct editing although it does encourage posting of suggestions on the article talk page. In other words, you should not be directly adding this material. The second problem is licensing. The page doesn't have a clear copyright indication so I'm not clear on the copyright status. We cannot use wording unless it is freely licensed and I haven't yet seen a clear statement that it is freely licensed. Do you know the copyright status?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a note regarding the copyright notice left on the website, it is possible to copy content from a page, but it must have a disclosure that it is free to use. More information is at WP:DONATETEXT. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Yes, that is an option. I've tended not to push that because it means they have to jump through OTRS hoops (and we have a many week backlog for OTRS permissions), plus it is awkward to jump through all those hoops and then have another editor decide that the words aren't appropriately encyclopedic. But it is an option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picc-vic line map.jpg

Please reconsider your speedy deletion of a version of this file - I would think either a restoration of the original version or out right deletion is the appropriate course of action. It would appear that a bot did an automatic resize and then you deleted the original. In doing so you destroyed the free use rationale as the station names are no longer readable and so it no longer illustrates the route. Indeed the free use rationale for the original image said it was as small as it could be and still read the names - something I'd have hoped you would have noticed before doing the speedy delete. I'm not sure this ever met free use criteria as it could easily be replaced by someone making their own version of the network so as I say I think outright deletion may be the appropriate outcome. Dpmuk (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dpmuk, The speedy deletion applied to the prior versions of the file were not being used. They weren't in use, so I think the deletion followed policy. Your concern appears to be that the original image may have been as small as possible to be legible, yet large enough that it fell within the parameters of the relevant bot. This is clearly an issue to be taken up with the bot operator. It may require some fundamental rethinking regarding how we handle such situations. My understanding is that the bot automatically resizes when an image exceeds some resolution (whose value I am not immediately recalling). Such an approach is not very workable if there are legitimate exceptions to the upper bound so someone has to work out some approach, such as to add a parameter to the file image to indicate that it qualifies as an exception and then the bot could search for parameter. However, I suspect our technical experts could come up with a workable option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it the more I question whether the image deserves to be an exception to our resolution limitation.
Let me start by saying I'm aware of Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, but I'm also aware that there are a number of editors with significantly more experience in this area.
Let me illustrate my concern with an analogy. Suppose you were to examine the image in the INFOBOX for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band:File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg becasue you were trying to recall the words written on the little girls top (Welcome the Rolling Stones). The resolution is too low to make them out (at least for me). If you were to argue that the resolution needs to be higher so that this important aspect of this cover could be read, I would respond that the image is subject to copyright, and we are allowed to use a version of the image under fair use rules, and the resolution is sufficient to identify the work alone not sufficient to closely examine all details of the work. No one is going to look at the low resolution image and mistake it for a different album cover — it adequately and uniquely identifies the album.
In contrast, you want this image, not to uniquely identify the promotional leaflet published (for which the reduced resolution is sufficient), but to serve as a map, which requires a high enough resolution to read the station stops. But I'll argue that a sufficient resolution to act as a map is not fair use. Arguably, that's expropriation of the purpose of the leaflet. If we want a map we should create a map and I see that the article Picc-Vic_tunnel does have an editor created map, Which does not have the copyright problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly I do not necessarily want a higher resolution version of the file kept - all I want is to solve the issue of the currently useless image in the article. In my first post I said I thought there were two options, one of which was outright deletion. I did not ask for a restoration, I asked you to reconsider. As I stated in my original post I am also fairly certain this can not qualify as free use since it's clearly replaceable by someone making their own version. However at least with the higher resolution image the free use rationale would at least make sense and the image would serve it's purpose in the article. As things stand, with the loser resolution version, there is no way we can claim it's fair use with that rationale and so in my opinion the current version is a WP:F9 speedy deletion (the original version would not be a valid F9 since it has a claim of fair use but I don't believe anyone has claimed fair use for this version).
As an ex-admin (who resigned in good standing) I was under the impression that admins were meant to review speedy deletions to make sure they were reasonable. To give an example if someone replaced this image with a new version of something completely different then the original would be unused but no one would accept that was a reasonable speedy delete. A quick look at the fair use statement should have at least raised doubts on the original speedy delete. Dpmuk (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&oldid=857408105"