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 Jdaviescoates (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 11 October 2018 (→‎CPBF page deletions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Patents for humanity

Hi Sphilbrick. You reverted my changes due to copyright, but I went to the US government source, and copied the text from there while editing it / summarizing it. Source: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patents-humanity/2016-award-recipients I believe that would fall under fair use. Would you agree? Feel free to revert back if I'm correct. --nunocordeiro (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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]

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]
You and I appear to differ regarding the responsibilities of an admin in the situation. According to F5:This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. That clearly applies. It sounds like you think the admin reviewing the situation is expected to do substantially more and frankly I'm not entirely clear what you expect the admin to look at or for what purpose. Are you aware that there were literally tens of thousands of these images needing deletion? It would be an absurd waste of time to spend many minutes on each situation given that it clearly meets the criteria on the chance that a thorough review of all relevant facts might result in…? Even if the thorough review resulted in a decision that the deletion ought to be overturned, it would be far more efficient to carry out the speedy of the tens of thousands of images and do a manual revert in the very small handful of cases that might require reversion. In other words, I think my action was warranted even if you've identified a rare situation that requires reversion and I haven't yet seen evidence that it should be reverted.
You state that you want to solve the issue of the useless image. You're free to propose it for deletion, although an easier option is to simply remove it from the article. If it is truly useless (which sounds like you agree that it's intended as a map not as identification of the leaflet). If it stays removed, it will automatically be deleted sometime.
I have concerns with the current rationale, but I see this is a close call and I'd want a debate with some knowledgeable editors to determine whether a valid purpose can be written. If the goal is to generate a map, then we are on the same page and this image should not be used. I haven't looked closely at the article but claim purpose is "discussing the history of the project". That image might be relevant to a discussion of the history, although it doesn't seem to be used that way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point you at the relevant it of the deletion process page - "Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version and to determine whether there was a cut-and-paste move involved, and search for other information which may impact the need or reason for deletion...". To me that implies an admin should clearly do some due diligence before deleting. I would't expect any admin to spend a long time on this but a quick glance at the fair use summary doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances. But I think on that we have to agree to differ.
I asked you reconsider because, to me, just outright removing it seemed an end around process (we've made this picture useless at what we intended it for so now we'll remove it from the article and request speedy deletion). That said I hadn't really considered, until this discussion, that the route diagram pretty much duplicates it's fair use rationale so there's no need to use it in the article for that reason. Hence I can now feel justified in removing it as it will no longer feel an end around process. Dpmuk (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Warwick School

I contributed several improvements and additions to the article on Warwick School, which were almost immediately removed. I cannot see that I can violate my own copyright! I wrote the material for both the Old Warwickians website and the Wikipedia page. G N Frykman (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@G N Frykman:It is not unusual for someone to express surprise when they see an edit reverted and it involves a copyright issue and they happen to be the author of the original words. However, the reversion was not an error.
There are typically two issues that need to be addressed. We want to respect the rights of copyright holders, and while you may be the copyright holder, we have no way of knowing that. Even if there is documentation somewhere showing that the copyright holder happens to have your username, we didn't require proof of identification when you chose that username so we don't know that you are that person. In addition, it isn't simply sufficient to state that you are the copyright holder and therefore permitted to use the material, you have to affirmatively provide a permission statement. Sometimes, people are surprised at the broad nature of the permission statement, and we want to make sure they know what they are agreeing to, when they provide the free license.
A sample permission statement and instructions on how to file it can be found here:Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I am the school archivist, and I'm expected to be the main author of scholarly articles about the school. I respect your position, and will try to fill in the permission statement. Best wishes. G N Frykman (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A second reason for being especially careful also may apply here. It is not unusual for someone to be the author of some words which are written on behalf of some other person or some organization, and not fully realize that the copyright of the words is the contracting organization. In fact, it is the norm. An organization typically wants control over the text of their own site, so the usual situation is that the copyright is with the organization not with a specific person who wrote the words. In this case, the school is asserting copyright over the words, so either we need documentation from the school explaining that their claim is an error, or we need the permission statement filed by an individual at the school with the authority to make the release. The person might be you, but we need to have it carried out formally.
Sorry for the complications, but we respect copyright holders and want to make sure their rights are respected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now looked at the source material and see your name on it which unfortunately means I have to raise a third concern. It is virtually certain that you are associated with the school in some way, so you have a conflict of interest. Please see: wp:coi. You should not be directly editing the article page, but you're more than welcome to propose suggestions or improvements on the article talk page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian terrorism

Hello. About my edition in Christian terrorism, when I wrote in Cristero War section I made it copying almost all to the main article in WP. I didn't knew that this text was copyrighted. Xarucoponce (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xarucoponce: I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying. If you are saying that you made an edit to Christian terrorism, copying material that had been in Cristero War, That's permitted, but you have to follow the guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If that is the case, I'll also note that I've complained to the developers of our copyright detection software that this type of situation is missed and results and false positives but nothing has yet been done about it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville: Summer of 1915 - most of what you deleted I wrote myself. deisenbe (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: Did you write it and have it published somewhere? I included a source in my reversion, although it's my guess that the site with the material borrowed it from somewhere else probably inappropriately. It is relevant to know where it is first published. Although you may be the editor, one issue to explore is whether it was published in a forum that requires you to transfer the copyright to them. My guess is that this is the case, but it's a step we always have to check when someone claims that there is no copyright violation because they wrote the words. The second issue that must be addressed is how to determine that you are indeed the author. We allow anyone to create almost any username, so it isn't enough to find that the words were written by someone with your username. If they have been published, then to reuse them as is will require that you only fill out a permission statement and send it in to OTRS so that we can confirm that the person issuing the license is the author of the words. There's more information at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials, but I'll be happy to help you with the process.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are unpublished. Get me for OR if you want to, but I think I’m doing more good than harm. I strongly disagree with WP’s OR policy. If it’s relevant, I have pretty good credentials as a researcher. deisenbe (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: I'm confused. If it's unpublished, how did I find it here? (As previously noted I'm not sure this is the original publication but it certainly qualifies as a publication.) On the chance that there is a terminology issue, published doesn't only mean set in type and issued in a printed publication such as a magazine or book, and includes publication in online sites, including chat sites blogs and more formal published sites. I didn't raise the issue of Wikipedia:No original research—if you disagree with our policy, you're welcome to open up a discussion to change it. However, that's an aside, as I don't see the relevance to this discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text you mention from writewww.com is based on the Wikipedia article, as is said at the beginning. They’re copying what I wrote. deisenbe (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps a lot. Let me think about what to do next.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand your OR comment which didn't make sense to me earlier. I have restored the edit which should not be construed as "blessing" the edit. I have only address the copyright issue which is a nonissue. Whether it belongs in the article is not something I analyzed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: This situation is one that is fairly common and has the potential of creating false positives and our copyright detection software.

The general sequence of events is as follows:

  1. Some editor add some material to an article
  2. Some external site (call it site X) copies the content. They may do it permissibly with attribution or may not indicate the source
  3. Material is removed from the Wikipedia article for some reason (it might be vandalism, or it might be a disagreement that the material is appropriate for the article)
  4. After a passage of time, the material is added back to the article
  5. The software detection program looks at the addition of text, and identifies it as being identical or close to text at site X
  6. Someone (like me) looks at the reports and has to ascertain whether it is a copyright violation

Situations like this pop up in the copyright software several times every day. In most cases, the editor adding the material for the second time explains in the edit summary something like "material being re-added because it was inappropriately removed earlier". Anytime we see an edit summary like that, we know to check to see if the material was then Wikipedia before it was copied to site X, and that report is marked resolved with no action. If the edit summary is silent on that issue, it may turn out to be a false positive because in fact the material added in the second edit does match some material found at site X. As an aside, I've asked the developers of software to try to identify these issues more clearly to avoid the false positives but that hasn't yet happened so until it happens the solution is to use edit summaries that summarize the edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So would you please restore what you deleted? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already done before I posted here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Greenberg

I have no idea why you deleted my edit. There was nothing in the edit that attacked Todd Greenberg or made the article bad. It was all factual and there were references. It leads me to believe one of two things. You either are a Canterbury supporter or you have nothing better to do than delete content that people put on Wikipedia for no good reason.

You are a relatively new editor but I would've guessed you have been around long enough to know about edit summaries. If not, review the edit summary explaining my edit and respond accordingly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:37, 12 September 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) 10:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, VERY interesting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Jeff Hunt (music producer)

Hi, I have since referenced reliable third-party sources in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Hunt_(music_producer)) and am waiting for the Draft page to be made life. Is there something I can do to expedite the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talkcontribs) 13:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors willing to help new editors hang out at the teahouse, where questions like this are answered:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike boyd88 (talkcontribs) 14:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have looked further and it is you that has your wires crossed here. The text entered to the above page comes from the clubs own official website. The other website (the one you quoted), took it from the club... not the other way about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike boyd88 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking.
The material added clearly matches that at this site, which not only doesn't have an acceptable license (at least that I could find) but it also has a clear indication that it is subject to full copyright.
It is not uncommon that someone explains that it is okay for them to use this material because either they are the editor, or they have the permission of the organization or some similar reason. That applies, let's discuss because there are steps one can take but we cannot simply accept such assurances.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had written the above response before seeing your additional note so I dropped it in and in the way I'll respond to your more recent point in a few minutes.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike boyd88: There is (in my opinion) a flaw in our software for copyright detection, one I've asked to have fixed to no avail. I don't know whether it applies here but your response suggests that it might be relevant.
If someone adds material to a Wikipedia article, there are many thousands of sites which copy such material. Occasionally the material in the Wikipedia article is removed and after a passage of time replaced in the article and our software sees the link between the added material and an external site which had copied from Wikipedia. That's a false positive. I'm not yet sure whether that's what happened here. You said that the text comes from the "clubs own official website". Unless that site provided a free license for the text, it is still a copyright violation. (If the club did provide a free license there are some other problems, but will address those only if that's the situation.)
I have seen some new editors under the impression that it is acceptable to use material from an organization's official website. That's almost never true. Let me know if that's what happened and I can elaborate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The River (1984 film)

This article may need to be protected. I just reverted the copy-vio again and warned the anonymous user. I have a feeling he's not going to get the message. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crow:I had literally just finished doing an RD1 on that page. I just went back and did two more Am I still missing some?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bacterial secretion system

Bacterial secretion system which I created yesterday was deleted

because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://colloidalfrere.blogspot.com/2015/04/secretion.html.

And this I think is a very hasty and imprudent decision. The said blogspot is, in all honesty, one that I have never ever seen, and I cannot even access it right now to know its content. If my article had been carefully read, it opens (the lead section, rather lengthy one) entirely and genuinely with my own words. In fact the rest of the text, i.e. Type I secretion, etc. came from the page Secretion. If mine is a copyright infringement, that page should also be immediately deleted. In fact, my plan is to present an exhaustive article on bacterial secretion system with new scientific information which are not covered in "Secretion" and sub-articles, and rewrite my page entirely. It is disappointing also that I am not given even a chance to justify (contest the nomination by visiting the page is already dead). I have so far worked diligently in improving medicine and biology information through Wikipedia. This action is a bit discouraging. Therefore, I request you to restore the page, and I shall do the rest. Chhandama (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chhandama:It wasn't hasty, much less very hasty, and it wasn't imprudent. It may have been a false positive, which can be easily addressed.
If you look at my very recent discussion User_talk:Diannaa#Copyright_and_new_page_Patrol, I'm talking about the challenges of this very situation. I'll excerpt the relevant paragraph:
For example, one of the false positives that bedevils me is copying within Wikipedia. If they follow the protocol as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, I know I'll catch it, and we could tell them that if they follow that protocol, some human will be along to accept it, and they can ignore the message. If, however, they copied within Wikipedia and did not note that in the edit summary, they still have a chance to fix it with a dummy edit and that might occur before we get around to reviewing it which would be a net positive.
You are not a brand-new editor, you've been around for over 11 years. That doesn't mean you're expected to know everything, it has become painfully aware that many longtime editors are unfamiliar with our guideline covering copying within Wikipedia, but it would've hoped someone with your experience would know by now that the AGF response is to politely ask what happened rather than starting out with bad-faith assumptions.
I have to run out to a doctor's appointment so I don't have time to do the dummy edit to provide the proper attribution so I'm asking you to do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for restoring the page.Chhandama (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Leo van de Pas

Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Leo van de Pas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Removed the copyrighted material and tagged with revdel template. There are still other content to save. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —AE (talkcontributions) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: You haven't completed the removal of the copyrighted material. See: Earwig--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me —AE (talkcontributions) 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Abelmoschus Esculentus:(I don't think it is done, but I don't have the energy to fight about the remaining sentence.) It is my opinion that when an initial creation of an article is mostly a copyright violation, it is better to remove it entirely and urge the editor to start over. An editor who doesn't understand copyright issues doesn't get to impose upon us the obligation to spend considerable time teasing out what needs to be removed and what can remain. I understand many editors disagree with this position, but when we have multi-week backlogs for reviews of drafts, a strain on resources of copyright reviewers, and a strain on OTRS agents trying to deal with hundreds of serious questions, it doesn't make sense to devote scarce resources to cleaning up someone who doesn't know what they're doing. If you choose to spend your time that way, more power to you, but I don't think it's a sensible use of my time. Let me know if you disagree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right. Sorry for disturbing you and wasting your time. We all work in different areas, and it’s all for Wikipedia’s good anyway. I’ll warn them then. —AE (talkcontributions) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MV Logo - NEW.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MV Logo - NEW.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the need for the hour is de-escalation. That is everyone walk-away for a few days and give MH enough time/room to request and be granted return to their regular editing. If instead we force the community to decide between "overturning the current block" or CBANing the user, I'm afraid the latter option is (unfortunately) likely to be chosen. Similarly, if MH is immediately unblocked, their conduct is likely to lead to further escalation till a stick-ier block becomes unavoidable.

So my advice to those who wish the user well, would be to (1) counsel MH offline if possible, (2) let the issue lie for say a week or two to see if everyone regains some perspective. Just my 2c. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: You missed the substance of my request which apparently I didn't express clearly enough. We have a block of one of the most prolific editors in Wikipedia history and after spending over an hour looking at links provided by people, I have no idea why the block was made or what led to the block. I don't think it's an unreasonable request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 at Women in Red

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94|Clubs]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95|Science fiction + fantasy]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|STEM]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97|The Mediterranean]]

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

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I've been wondering for some time...

invisible non-breaking spaces discussion

...what causes the appearance of & nbsp; in edits such as this one [1]. I see it here and there, seemingly randomly, from certain editors. Is it some editing tool certain people are using that inserts these? It's not a big problem per se, but it makes me worry that this tool (or whatever it is) might be making other, more objectionable, changes sometimes. Any ideas what's going on? EEng 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: WP:WIKEDNBSP. --Izno (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There izno one as fast as you! So the mystery is replaced by a puzzle. Question 2: Where are these nbsp's coming from in the first place? EEng 15:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Apparently the combination for a non-breaking space on a Mac is fairly easy to bump--it looks to me like there are a few combinations there which are pretty easy to insert accidentally. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Macs. OK, that explains it. EEng 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Color me puzzled. I did scroll up thread somewhere so that I could copy and Paste *'''Strong Keep''' but then I just typed my small comment and signed it. I don't recall touching the several other paragraphs that purportedly have an edit made by me. I'm not using a Mac.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right; Wiked converts already-existing invisible non-breaking spaces to be explicit, which is broadly a good behavior, I think. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the link provided by Izno, I'm an innocent bystander :) and it may have been the prior edit by David Tornheim who introduced an invisible nonbreaking space, and when I made my edit my additions were included but WikEd converted the invisible nonbreaking space to the HTML reference. Perhaps David will confess to owning a Mac.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where the non-breaking space characters came from. The sequence & nbsp ; is one of my least favorite codes introduced by HMTL. I have rarely used it, and I did not deliberately add any non-breakign spaces on the page in question. The & nbsp ; code was definitely added here as noted above. Probably from Sphilbrick's use of WikiEd?
Two possible explanations: (1) I use the long-held convention to have two spaces after a period. Increasingly I hear that convention has been changed because of word processing (e.g. Sentence_spacing). I haven't, and I'm not alone [2]. It appears science might be on my side. [3] [4] (2) At one point, I copied the entirety of the Wiki text (with the two spaces after the period) from the Wiki text editor into Word to save it for back up, and then copied it back. It is possible that Word saw the two spaces and thought using the standard ASCII for two spaces (Code 32 if I remember) was not good enough, and then converted one into a nonbreaking space. Unlike the far superior word processor WordPerfect which has reveal codes, it's hard to know just what encoding Word is ever using. I would have copied the text into Notepad instead, but Notepad doesn't do line wrap. Maybe I should use WordPad for my drafts. Working directly with text is definitely not as easy as it used to be when I used Emacs. I believe Wikid77 (or maybe another editor here, possibly Mjpants) suggested a superior text editor that has better version control for my Wikipedia drafts. I'm open to new suggestions on that... --David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

non-breaking spaces...

With this edit, you added a bunch of   elements to David Tornheim's comment. Is there any particular reason for that? It makes the comment much more difficult to read in edit view. I've already responded to it, but others might yet do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: Please see the section directly above that discusses this. Maybe you can solve the mystery.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now, but Izno provided an answer to the "mystery" in the second comment of that thread. It's a feature of WikiEd which interacted with either a bug in whatever editor you were using, or some oddities in the way you edit, or possibly the result of some copying & pasting you did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I do think Inzo is correct and Wikied made the changes on-Wiki to add the & nbsp ;, but it's a mystery to me as to how I accidentally inserted the non-breaking space--assuming I had. For now, I will assume Word was the cause. The problem/mystery for me is I'm not sure how to prevent Word from doing that again in the future. Word is the easiest way for me to work on drafts off-Wiki. Is the addition of those & nbsp ; going to be a problem that I should worry about? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would switch over to Notepad myself, or download Notepad++ (the latter of which I have made a plugin for that enables MediaWiki syntax highlighting. As soon as you mentioned using Word, my inner tech-support geek nodded sagely and voiced his thoughts. The type of spaces it inserts when you hit the spacebar can vary based on context. If you have more questions, it would probably be most polite to Sphilbrick for you to put them on my talk page. I can walk you through setting up notepad++ if you go that route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw in a nod for NoteTab Pro. I believe note tab is free but NoteTab Pro is ridiculously cheap. I occasionally use word for some things but find NoteTab Pro much better for composing Wikipedia posts. Just as one example I've got one page with all my 2018 edits which is at 42,000 lines and counting but loads almost instantly. This makes it easy to find any prior relevant posts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions from both of you. It was Notepad++ that I was going to try. I think I had installed it on a previous computer and might have used it for HTML 5 at one point. I might try that again. MPants at work thanks for the offered help on installing it. I might take you up on that. NoteTab Pro sounds interesting as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'll also add that NoteTab Pro's wildcard searches are way easier to write than Notepad++'s regex searches. But once you get used to regex, it's easy enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
  • I think was really needs to happen is for WikiEd to ask, "nbsp's were found in the text. Should they be converted to & nbsp;, or to regular space? Unless you're sure you know what you're doing, the safe answer is regular space." Or maybe it should just convert nbsp to regular space, period. It's almost certain that any nbsp's present are accidental. EEng 02:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Saint Anselm College.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Saint Anselm College.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong message in template?

Hi, Sphilbrick! I happened to actually read our {{Nothanks}} template after I left one for User2693. It seems to me that the first bullet-point is no longer really applicable. If someone were to take that advice and send a forwarded permission to OTRS, would they not get a standard "No forwarded permissions" response by return of post? Is there any situation where a permission of that kind could be accepted? Asking you in particular rather than the world in general because of your activity there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, I am worried I'm missing something. The only bullet point I see is in the see also section. I agree that OTRS doesn't accept forwarded permissions (a policy I don't totally agree with) so if we suggest that we need to rethink the wording but I'm not seeing that wording. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am now looking at the message User_talk:User2693#Copyright_problem:_Draft:Bill_James Perhaps I should be able to figure out which template created that but I haven't figured it out. In any event my preliminary thoughts are that you are exactly right. Let me bring it up with some OTRS people. Before I do, can you track down exactly which template you used?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant:{{Nothanks-web}}--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already edited.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, wrong template! I read the email exchange, and the result is better. The first two bullet-points probably could (or should?) be merged, since the process is the same in each case. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You deleted {{Notice-nc-geo}} 2 years ago, but this category (which seem to be the tracking category for the template) is still alive and empty. I am not sure if any other templates are using this category, but I thought you should check. — regards, Revi 09:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-revi, Sorry for the delay -- I have no opinion. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

The ticket is locked can you please unlock it. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiven2240, Oops, sorry, I just unlocked it. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added JustlettersandnumbersL235
removed BgwhiteHorsePunchKidJ GrebKillerChihuahuaRami RWinhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678Deryck ChanOshwahPharosRagesossRitchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero NativeForeigner SnowolfXeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg

Hi Sphilbrick. Would you take a look at the file overwrite of File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg? The original versions were not free tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7, and the overwrite is an attempt to remedy that; however, the free and non-free are completely different images and the speedy deletion of the non-free was contested by the uploader. It seems like it would’ve been better to upload the free image to Commons, and just add it to article as a new image. The end result may turn out to be the same, but the free version should eventually be moved to Commons if its licensing is OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, I agree that in this case, it would've been better had the new image been uploaded is a different filename. However, we are where we are, and I think allowing the nonfree versions to be deleted is a very typical situation, so I'm not completely clear on what you are asking. It does raise one tiny technical point — if an image is free but prior versions are not, what happens if the image is moved to commons? Are the nonfree versions in history? I presume so. Is this a problem? I presume not. I assume a bot will take care of the move. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. My main concern is that because the uploader contested the speedy deletion using {{replaceable fair use disputed}} that the overwriting might be argued as an attempt to delete the non-free without a proper admin review. F5 deletions tend be more automatic and uncontested, whereas F7 deletions are sometimes sent to FFD for further discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly, I think you make an excellent point. I thought about how to undo it but that doesn't sound easy. Perhaps the issue should be sent to FFD (because I fully agree that F5 is typically more automatic and it probably is the case that this deserves a little more thought). While I have participated in reviewing at FFD I'm not sure I've ever proposed something there so I haven't thought through whether my suggestion is easy to implement are not. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a re-look at this. Apparently, based upon their posts at User talk:Adam9007#File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg, the uploader doesn't seem to be insisting on using the non-free file over the free version which replaced it and seems to be satisfied that both images are of the same person; so, there's probably no real point in discussing this at FFD since the non-free would almost certainly be deleted per WP:F7 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berlioz

It will be deleted from the main article shortly as we get towards FAC. Tim riley talk 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked you on my talk page for your kind help, and I just want to add a note of thanks here too. Tim riley talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grahame Hardie

Re: Grahame Hardie biography on royalsociety.org. Royal Society IP terms state "All text published under the heading 'Biography' on Fellow profile pages is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." Do you know what I have to do to comply with that? 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T0mpr1c3, Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, the footer at the bottom of the page says:
Copyright © 2018 The Royal Society. All rights reserved.
They don't make this easy. I can accept that the comment on that page overrides the statement in the footer. Feel free to reinstate your edit, but don't be surprised if someone else challenges it. It might help if you made a note of this in an edit summary so that others will know where to look. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for taking the time to check it out. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found what I needed, viz. -->  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
T0mpr1c3, Yes! That's even better. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sphilbrick. This appears to be another good-faith, but still mistaken overwrite if a file. The older version can also be seen as File:1987 God-is-overal ©Estate-Philippe-Vandenberg.jpg. Moreover, I think both of these may be reuploads of files previously deleted from Wikipedia or Commons for lacking permission. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, I want to address this and revisit the item above, but I'm right out straight until tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note here--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at this one too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to reverse discretionary sanctions imposed by blocked editor?

I was came across a page today, Deep_state_in_the_United_States in which 1RR and consensus required was imposed by an editor that is now no longer an admin and is blocked. How can I get these sanctions removed? -Obsidi (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidi, That's an excellent question. Unfortunately, I have almost no involvement in DS and think it would be better to get advice from someone with experience. Perhaps AN? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CPBF page deletions

Hi there,

Rather frustratingly you removed all the edits I made to the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom page (which I was in the process of greatly improving), including the section about our journal Free Press - CPBF, just because I usefully listed our aims as they appear on our about page https://www.cpbf.org.uk/about/

How do you suggest we list the aims here without getting them removed? There is no copyright issue because it is simply a factual list - I am the National Organiser of CPBF and our National Council want me to list our aims on the Wikipedia page about this - can you advise?

Also, is there anyway of retrieving the edits I made where I began to add details of our journal Free Press - CPBF?

I must say having my good faith edits completely removed in this way rather disincentivizes me trying to add to and improve Wikipedia :(