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 Jhart003 (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 6 November 2019 (→‎Reason For Deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

FYI:

Copyright issue?


If you are coming to open a discussion with me because I reverted an edit of yours as a copyright issue, please make sure your post includes a link to the article in question - not just the name of the article, a link. Then read the following:

I typically use an edit summary with "copyright issue re URL", or "cv URL". The URL identifies source material that matches your edit too closely.

Copy Within Wikipedia If you added material to an article which came from an existing article in Wikipedia, it is highly likely that this will be flagged as a potential copyright violation in our CopyPatrol software.

If you followed the best practices at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, you left an edit summary indicating the source, I will mark it as acceptable, and you are probably not reading this message. On the other hand, if you did not identify what you did in an edit summary, then I probably reverted the edit. However, the indicated source URL will not be the Wikipedia article, it will be be some site that copied from Wikipedia. (As a technical point, this is not a false positive because failing to follow best practices means that the attribution requirements have not been followed.) If the edit has been revision deleted, let me know so I can reverse it and you can provide the proper attribution. If it was not revision deleted but simply reverted, feel free to undo my revert, explaining carefully in the edit summary why you are doing so and add the proper attribution.

Other issues There are other reasons why your edit may have been reverted in error. I do a lot of reviews of flagged issues. In 1 to 2% of the cases, I do make a mistake and I'm happy to rectify it. Some sources of errors:

  • Source page which has a full copyright notice at the bottom of the page but material within the page is properly licensed. Sometimes that license is buried in the page and sometimes on a separate page.
  • Source material that is public domain but not clearly identified as such.
  • Source material that is properly licensed but I somehow failed to notice the license
In any of these cases, politely let me know and I will remedy this situation as quickly as possible.

April editathons at Women in Red

Yes, I emailed you

A few days ago I emailed you about your deleting my photo of a historical marker and the text taken from that marker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alta_Loma,_Texas&action=history

This is an official State of Texas Historical marker. I have contacted the Texas office responsible for markers and they say there is no copyright violation for posting pictures of any Texas Historical marker and no copyright on the text in this case. As your reason for deletion you gave a reference to a disorganized text file [not intended as a criticism I just couldn't think of another way to characterize it] on a random website that posts pictures people have taken of historical markers. There are MANY such websites that post pictures of markers (including this one -- Wikipedia) but they cannot claim copyright on other people's pictures nor for the text itself as they simply copied it from the markers. foobar (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki name, Early in my Wikipedia career I was working on an article about some Revolutionary war event and I took and posted a photo of a historical marker. It was taken down which stunned me because I had assumed that taking such a photo would be permitted but it was explained to me that virtually all text is copyrighted and can only be posted if the copyright holder is provided explicit permission (with some important exceptions for federal works automatically in the public domain and works old enough to be in the public domain.)
I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission. I would love to hear officially from the Texas office responsible for markers explaining why it is not a problem because I would be much happier to have the marker up to take it down, but I need to see something in writing from someone who has the authority to make the statement. The statement probably has to be Something beyond "yes it's okay" such as a provision in Texas state law designating historical markers as free of copyright, but we'll cross that bridge when we see the statement.
Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a pain but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and a secondhand claim that Texas says it's okay isn't quite enough. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<quote>I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission.</quote>
But Wikipedia does post pictures of Texas historical markers, many of them. Will a copy of their email replay satisfy this?foobar (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, It will be a start. I hope it points out a provision of Texas law, which may explain the others you mention. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I rather not "start" down a new trail. If you will accept a copy of the email I received from the department of the State of Texas responsible for Historical Markers as an end of this. I will be happy to provide it but not as part of a continuing dialog.
Wiki name, Just to be clear, I will be very happy if it turns out that Texas does treat the text on historical markers as being in the public domain or at least a satisfactorily free license. I wish all states would do so but as far as I know this isn't the case. I will be happy to be proven wrong. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK you win, here's a link to a screen capture of an email from the office responsible for Texas Historical markers. http://oi63.tinypic.com/mo5qg.jpg If you want an unredacted version you will have to give me an email address where you can be reached as I'm unwilling to post the persons name and email address nor mine on a public place on the web. foobar (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, I sent you an email. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replied foobar (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have all the evidence you asked for proving Texas Historical markers and their text is not copyrighted, seems like it's time to revert your reversion?foobar (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, Let's see if I can find your email, I don't recall it. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, I got a notice on 7 August you sent me an email but I don't see the email. I just double checked my inbox and also checked in two other locations where I sometimes get emails other than my main inbox but don't see it in any of the three locations. I have hundreds of unread emails so I only looked on 7 August. Is that the right date? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, I tried again to access the the image you sent me and I had a little better luck but I have serious concerns. The person states "in addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers". while I understand that you would find that statement compelling, whenever I hear someone say there is no copyright, it turns out it said by someone who doesn't understand copyright.
I can't quite read the email address but it looks like it came from someone named Jim from a Comcast.net email address. At a bare minimum, we would need an email address associated with the Texas Historical Commission. This clearly is not and doesn't even include a last name.
This appears to be a list of contacts at THC and I don't see anyone named Jim. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, I just sent an email to Lynnette Cen, who was identified as the office manager with responsibility for State Historical Markers.
While we are waiting for her to respond, you might want to take a glance at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_13#Copyright_status:_historical_marker_text S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, Response will be Wednesday at earliest. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am Jim. Look at the From address. It's from the person at Texas Historical Commission replying to me. As long as we are making no progress at the moment. I argue at a minimum you should replace my photograph of the marker. It is legal in the U.S. to photograph anything in or from a public place. Virtually all markers are on or can be photographed from a public place as their intent is to be seen.

The Wikipedia article on Photography and the law says:

"Public property

... 

   It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards.[44]"

... 

   Photographing private property from within the public domain is not illegal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States foobar (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A week ago you received a reply to your email to the Historical Marker person at the state of Texas confirming what she wrote me. It is way past time you reinstate my page. To review, the person responsible for these issues at the State of Texas confirmed the following to me in an email:
"The State of Texas claims no copyright on Texas Historical Markers or pictures of them taken by individuals nor the publication of these pictures.
In addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers.
Physical access to a small number of markers in order to photograph them is restricted, though the photos and their text are not restricted."
foobar (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, Yes, and I'm trying to determine next steps. It supports your position, but I want more input because it is not consistent with our usual requirements. I'll reach out to someone today.S Philbrick(Talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is verging on the Twilight Zone. This began with your "hunch" there "might" be something wrong with posting a marker -- which is done in many places on Wikipedia. It has now been three week, and after getting the permissions you were asking for from the the State of Texas you're still searching for some kind of objection to support you're hunch. You have produced "no evidence" for you're hunch and I have produced real evidence to the contrary. Please bring an end to this foobar (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki name, I can't stop stop you from believing what you want to believe, but your summary doesn't bear close resemblance to the actual sequence of events. It didn't start with a "hunch". As I explained earlier, it started when a photo of a marker I uploaded was removed on the basis of copyright. in subsequent years, I've done a lot of work on copyright issues. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I've learned a lot about copyright issues.
I understand why you objected to the removal. You "thought" you had checked to make sure it was okay. I asked for confirmation and you initially sent me some file I couldn't access. After spending some time, I managed to read some informal email from someone who said you could do it but that person doesn't appear to be associated with the Texas Historical Commission.
On my own (because you seemed uninterested in ascertaining the facts), I did research on the Texas Historical Commission, and reached out to that person to ask for clarification of the copyright status. It took some time for that person to respond, and while the text of what they said sounded positive, I wasn't yet convinced.
I do more work in text issues than image issues, so I contemplated contacting Commons, who have more experience with image copyright issues, to see what they thought. However, I was busy and did not get to it for a couple days at which point you responded with an irrelevant citation from the law (I'm betting you don't even know why it is irrelevant). I decided that, rather than attempt to go through Commons, I would check with our resident copyright expert. I copied you on that post. Diannaa pointed out why the permission was deficient. You have shown no interest in discussing that with her.
You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
I spent a fair amount of time researching this, because I was genuinely interested in the possibility that It was acceptable to post such pictures, but I do this as a volunteer, and I'm now done. As always, if the facts change I will change my opinion, but based on the facts presented so far, there is no rationale for restoring the image you uploaded. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sphilbrick[reply]
I have tried to keep this exchange civil. I apologize if you took my use of the word hunch poorly, but the marker you referred to in the beginning was not a Texas marker or you never said so. Also the person who removed your picture may have been in error. So you developed a belief/gut feeling from that marker that all markers in all states were or might be copyrighted. An assumption I still believe is wrong. Not only that but the person who removed your picture may have been mistaken. That assumption or extrapolation is what I was calling a hunch and you have still provided no evidence to support this assumption. I am not at all proficient at Wikipedia. Something took me to the person Diannaa's page, but I was never able to find it again. I had assumed you would recount them here. To correct one statement. Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair. I was the first person to to contact the State about thie and made every attempt to send you the evidence. But it would not have done any good anyway because you got essentially the same information for them and have still decided it is not enough. The person on the email I sent you IS with the State of Texas. And is the From on the email. She is the person who wrote the reply you got when you emailed the Texas Historical Commission. Because I had contacted her about this she let me know you had written and the day she sent replied.
The discussion is here: User_talk:Diannaa#Copyright_issue_involving_Texas_Historical_Commission_markers--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair.

I said no such thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you get that I'm on your side. I want the ability to take photos of historical markers and use them in articles. I want someone to show me that this can be done in some, many, or all states. I want each state to either pass a law putting this material into the public domain, (or provide proof that this is already the case) or give us with an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring the statement where you said of me "... you seemed uninterested in ascertaining the facts ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. foobar (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can i translate an article ?

Hello,

You deleted my first article (History of science and technology in Argentina) because it didn’t respect some of Wikipedia's guidelines. I discovered that the article i wanted to translate from the hispanophone Wikipedia to the Anglophone’s one was translated in english but on an external website. The Wikipedia’s article in spanish is older than the translation on the other website. How can i translate the (featured) article in english without violating the copyright ? Aleksandr Sokolin (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Sokolin, Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate, including the need for an edit summary identifying the source. That edit summary helps in two ways, it provides the required attribution, and signifies to reviewers that it might be a false positive for a copyright issue match.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS team membership

Hi Sphilbrick, I was granted OTRS team membership a few months ago, and I'm afraid that I haven't done anything useful with it. I volunteered with the best of intentions, but I confess to having been somewhat daunted by the interface and the amount of reading it was going to take me to get up to speed. I had hoped to find time over the summer to get my head into it, but to be honest I've been able to muster up far more enthusiasm to content creation recently, and getting into OTRS has gradually morphed from an interesting project I was looking forward to, into a task that I'm feeling guilty about putting off.

The summer almost being over now, and I can't realistically see that I'm going to have any time to devote to it in the near future, so I think I should regretfully ask for my rights to be revoked, with a sincere apology to all those who spent time looking into my application. Can you let me know what I need to do to make this happen? Thanks, and sorry again for having wasted people's time. GirthSummit (blether) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Before you give up, let's chat a bit.
I agree, thw interface is far short of ideal. I haven't pushed for change because once one finally learns that, it's still a little annoying but not terrible and I'm not looking forward to learning a new interface.
I've had some positive experience working with a new agent live, not necessarily in person but connected by phone. There are a few tricks to learning how to navigate the interface and they are easy to talk through but not that easy to write down.
Once you learn how to navigate, there is definitely a role for someone who has limited time. I do a survey every two weeks, and I can tell you that the majority of agents average fewer than one ticket a day. obviously, we'd be happy with agents that do a little bit more than that, but if we had 100 agents who handle two tickets a week, we could probably keep our backlog down to a reasonable level.
As additional good news, some tickets are trickier than others, but if you aren't going to be particularly active, you can skip over ones that look complicated, and potentially find a niche of a type of ticket you like to handle.
Obviously, there would be some time commitment to getting up to speed, but I think an hour or two in one or two sessions would do it. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick, that's a very kind offer - I had thought about reaching out to someone to ask about some one-to-one training, but to be honest I was a bit embarrassed, assuming that it was just me being thick! I'm gearing up for the new school term now, but I might be able to put some time aside to do this, and if you were able to bat some easy cases my way for me to begin with it would assuage one of the worries I had about getting into something I didn't really understand and having to ask someone else to mop up after me. Do you mind if I think it over for a bit and get back to you? Thanks again. GirthSummit (blether) 16:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - I think I'd like to take you up on this offer. I'm not sure when you had in mind - I'm assuming that you're in Connecticut (from the userbox on your Talk Page) - I'm in the UK, but should have some time free tonight or tomorrow night, if that would work for you? After that things are likely to get a bit hectic for me for a couple of weeks, so might have to kick this into the longer grass, but could come back to you when I have more time. Let me know, and thanks again. GirthSummit (blether) 18:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow is my wedding anniversary, plus I have an appointment to go cut some trees, and I have a Board meeting to prepare for and attend, so tomorrow won't work. I'll come back with another option soon. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your anniversary! Sounds like you're pretty busy, quite understand that a long call at short notice isn't the easiest thing to squeeze in - if you want to suggest some dates/times, I'll see whether I can fit it in. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Sphilbrick - I've had a thought about how I could dip my toe into OTRS finally. I've been in correspondence via e-mail with someone called Phyllis Mitchell at Walkers Shortbread about them donating some photographs that we could use to illustrate Aberlour House (building). I gave her the OTRS e-mail address and the form of words to use to confirm that they are licensing us to use them; she tells me that she has done this now. Can you confirm whether we've received such an e-mail and, if so, give me some guidance for what I need to do in order to get the photographs onto Commons with the appropriate licensing? I should be able to make a bit of time to look at this at the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 06:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashenda

Hello Sphilbrick, I stumbled upon the article about Ashenda and found that a large portion of the article was a copy/paste from http://www.tigraionline.com/bahlina.html. I've seen you already dealt with this issue a few days ago but you left the copyrighted portion of text untouched. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? Thanks in advance and happy editing. --DoebLoggs (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DoebLoggs, I think that Nthep has handled it. I may have missed something, but not going to reconstruct unless there are still open issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135


Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

List of Honorary Doctors of the University of Nairobi

Could you take a look at this article? It showed up in CopyPatrol and is entirely copied from this, however considering it's the descriptions of awards I'm not sure what should be done. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont, Heh, I actually looked at that and decided to pass. However, let's talk. A long time ago I got some good advice regarding lists from Moonriddengirl. In short, the key issue is to what extent the list incorporates originality. at one extreme, a list of the 50 states does not incorporate originality, so cannot be subject to copyright. In contrast a publication listing their choices for the top 50 movies or books or whatever does constitute originality. In between a list which may have some level of originality. If this had simply been a list of the recipients of honorary degrees it would probably be okay (from a copyright standpoint), but the inclusion of the rationale for the awards does constitute originality. I'm not about to rewrite the article to remove all the descriptions, so my current thinking is that the article should be nominated for G 12. What do you think? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that it presently has copyright issues, and if we were to remove the infringing content it would have no more value than a simple category, I think G12 is the right path. Vermont (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oakley country club

What do you need from me to publish the revised history? Crimsonguard63 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crimsonguard63, As noted in the edit summary, the material was removed because it was a copyright violation.
In order to add the history to the article, it needs to be written in your own words, accompanied by references to publish reliable sources for all key points,
OR
You need to arrange for the material published at the organization's website to be freely licensed.
The first option is better, as even if the material published is freely licensed, it probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Player Pathway

You've reverted three recent edits. I can see how the section "Athlete eligibility and application" may be regarded as plagiarism but not the others, so can you revert those please. Could you also suggest how to better present the athlete eligibility regulations; these are carefully worded by the source (which is the NFL) from whom they have been copied by the site you mention (http://dblcoverage.com/are-you-the-next-nfl-undiscovered-star/). I don't want to post incorrect or misleading information and I cannot imagine that Double Coverage will mind that Wikipedia is also presenting the same information from the NFL that they did as public information in their article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal Extent (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same information is available at the following sites ;

Draft:MicroG for improvement, if interested

Maybe this time Draft:MicroG will happen. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block log mixup

Re your comments here. There's an outstanding bug report for that at phab:T199174. Yet to be triaged. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!

Please support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative!

Hi Sphilbrick, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation of Queen Victoria - copied text

I am reviewing this article. If you could help, I'd be grateful. I would just like to know why the section in the article that I believed it was wrong to copy (see Coronation of Queen Victoria#Queen Victoria's account) is OK to be reinstated, according to another editor, who has recommended I stop reviewing the article. I thought the case was pretty clear cut, but I am willing to accept the advice of an expert. Everything I have done with regards to the article was done in good faith. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Rejection for Northpole article edits

Dear sir, As someone that has a singular focus, adding USS Submarine surfacing references to the North_Pole article I was surprised by your edit of my changes back in April. As I only visit the page as new articles are released by the US Navy each year, I don't frequent the page, or logon to Wikipedia frequently.

[1]

Because I visited the North Pole in 1987 on the USS Billfish (SSN 676) I am interested in documenting these visits on the North Pole page.

Could you guide me as to how to reference the US Artic Submarine Article references?

Needless to say, I don't understand why a russian naval article, would have copyright infringement with articles on US Artic operations.

[2]

Thanks, Tom Canter Tcanter (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Pole&oldid=prev&diff=893917610
  2. ^ https://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/uwdc/asl/Pages/default.aspx

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140


Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Major Lenox Riley Lohr

I'd like to restore Draft:Major Lenox Riley Lohr. It was abandoned by the original editor and deleted by you per G13 back in 2016. I was planning to write an article about Lohr—, he is red linked on several pages, including one I just added (he co-wrote a paper on cryptography with William F. Friedman). Then I found this deleted bio, which is a good start. It needs refs added and some toning down, which I plan to do. Any objections?--agr (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified removal of revisions to "Model-based testing" article

Sorry, I don't understand why you removed my revision to the Model-based testing article. Specifically, the changes with explanation 'Restore "Input space modelling" section, adding references to multiple supporting tools'. I think you are claiming a copyright violation, but I don't see how. The deletion log entry refers to http://acva2010.cs.drexel.edu/omeka/items/show/30186. But this is merely some kind of link back to the same Wikipedia article. Exactly whose copyright is being violated here?

It seems that this removal is unjustified, in which case I ask that you restore it.

CornutumProject (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CornutumProject, Our copyright detection software often picks up a false positive when an editor involves copying material from another Wikipedia article.
Reviewers of those reports always check to see if the edit summary identifies that it is a copy within Wikipedia. The best practices are outlined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia
If that edit summary is not present, a reviewer may incorrectly conclude that it was a copyright violation and revert it. Feel free to redo the edit but make sure to follow the guideline. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will redo as you suggest. But I'm still mystified about why this happened or how to prevent it. My revision is totally original, not copied from elsewhere in Wikipedia. I will note that this is a revision that I was resubmitted (with changes) after it had been reverted away by a different editor. Only in that weird sense could it be construed as a "copy from within". But then how am I to avoid that if I redo? Just change a few words? CornutumProject (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CornutumProject, It will take some time to look into it, which I'm happy to do, but let's wait until you are successfully unblocked. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tagging of Draft:Flying car

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Flying car. I do not think that Draft:Flying car fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because A-series speedy deletion criteria do not apply to drafts. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Flying car for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel,
Under what circumstances would copying and pasting an existing article into draft space be acceptable?
It is technically a copyright violation. Those of us who actively worked in copyright issues would not typically remove material copied from another Wikipedia article is a copyright violation, and would warn the editor to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but that's not remotely applicable here.
I know that some new editors is appropriate to copy an existing article as a type of template then make changes to it, but that's not generally good advice, and if done should never be done in Wikipedia because of attribution problems.
That some of the eight criteria such as A7 or A9 should not be used in draft space because the light in progress, but that's not remotely applicable here.
While I see the statement that says the a criteria only apply to main space we ought to revisit that issue. (I do understand this is not the forum to revisit that issue.)
Are you suggesting that this should be AfD'd? that sounds like a lot of bureaucracy for what's probably just a blunder by an unregistered editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am suggesting that the only thing needed is to add a proper attribution statement, which will deal with the copyright issue, and that there is no need to delete this at all. If you really think it should be deleted, MfD is the way to go, but I would expect to oppose. It is not at all uncommon to copy an article to draft space to work on a major revision. Yes, that can cause attribution problems, and is not usually the best idea, but I ahve seen experienced editors do it a number of times, and it is not grounds for deletion, certainly not for speedy deletion. Such a copy cna also be used as a template for a new article, and that is also not grounds for deletion, even if not the best practice. I will add the attribution note. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, Sorry, but this sounds like bureaucracy run amok. I do grant that there are situations where editors conclude that a major rewrite of an article is appropriate, and decide to do it in a new location rather than individual edits to the existing main space article. I've been involved in such rewrites. While I haven't reviewed every such situation, I guarantee that they typically involve established editors, substantial related discussion on the relevant article talk pages, and are typically done in a personal editor's sandbox or in a sub page of the talk page. Using draft space for such a rewrite sounds like a bad idea. Moreover, there is virtually zero chance that an unregistered editor with no prior edits has decided to do a rewrite of flying car. Adding an attribution note simply forestalls the need to remove this blunder. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are not, or not primarily bureaucratic. Note that an unregistered editor may be an experienced editor editing not-logged-in -- I edited that way for most of a year at one point overe quite a few different IPs. But more importantly, speedy deletion is supposed to be only for clear-cut cases. As there are plausible valid if not optimal reasons for creating a copy of an existing article, it is not a good case for speedy deletion. I would point to User:Signimu/Fad diet as a recent example. Yes it was in user space rather than draft space, but it might well have been in draft space, and it does seem to have started as a copy and been modified in place.
I do think that, in accord with Process is Important the speedy criteria should be applied strictly and narrowly. If a page does not clearly fit a criterion, I will not delete under it. The criteria page says in its header:
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here. ... Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.
I adhere strictly to that principle, and think others should also. An Mfd discussiuon allows community input, but is not usually overly complex or onerous, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, I appreciate that you are taking the time to make a case. While I don't find the case persuasive, I accept that you didn't make a mistake. I will mention in passing that I was a bit irked to receive what felt like a templated response. However, there is so much to do — I won't spend any more time on this issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well editors can and do disagree on Wikipedia policy and practice. You could always propose at WT:CD mthat the A-series CSDs apply to drafts, or that somne of them should. My memory is there was such a proposal for a few of them not too long ago, and it did not get consensus. As for a templated response, in a sense it was. It used {{Speedy-Warn}}, which I created years ago when i found myself typing the same phrases in manual notifications on declined speedy deletions over and over. But the "reason" is always provided individually, and I would rather do this than not notify editors who tagged in good faith. Anytime I post such a notice and the editor responds, I will answer explaining why I acted as I did. Once in a while someone convinces me that I made an error. But then I still host User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I should probably move that back to project space. Thanks for your comments and your many many edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Sigma

Not doubting the copyright vio. But is there anyway to restore the list of members to the five rather than the reverted 1. At least two (I think the one that is there and the University President were referencable.Naraht (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht, I'm not fully following your point. If you would like a copy of the deleted material I can email it to you. Otherwise, can you clarify your request? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not the entire thing, just the list of notable alumni section. Not sure that needs to be emailed or simply restored or placed in one of my sandboxes.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, I emailed the list to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx. Not sure a list like that can be a copyvio problem, but I'll see if I can ref and add them back.Naraht (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, A pure list is typically not a copyright violation, but when a single edit includes a mixture of copyright problems and non-problems, we typically rollback the whole edit — in fact we typically rollback all edits by the editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht, if you have a ref it should be straightforward to add that information back. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I should have what qualifies back soon.Naraht (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mole Day!

6.022x1023

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinfelder Page - Good Faith Edit

Hi, I made edits to the Kleinfelder page [[1]] on October 18th. On the 19th it was reverted back...history says Good Faith copyright issue with historical timeline. I'm hoping to fix this issue so the edits I made on October 18th will go back to being published. I read through the Good Faith instructions but I still don't think I understand what I need to do. For the timeline information that I added, do I just need to include a reference to Kleinfelder's timeline on the company's website? Any guidance you can provide is appreciated! MKelly KLF (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific

[2] specifically, which part has copyright concerns? I've reinserted some of the stuff I removed earlier on pending discussion of reliable sources, but some of the things you've reverted doesn't make sense in the context of copyright. Please explain. I checked out the link you left in edit summary, https://www.classicstreamliners.com/ci-union-pacific.html and there are some parts of the article and that page that are identical. So, now I'm trying to determine if they copied from Wikipedia and claimed it as their own work or if someone on Wikipedia lifted stuff from there and pasted. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

never mind. In the page you said my edit was infringing on, it says on the foot notes they lifted it from Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, I don't disbelieve you but I looked again and did not find those footnotes. Even if they did copy it from Wikipedia that doesn't mean it can simply be added to another Wikipedia article.. It must be properly attributed. I'll look into this in the morning S Philbrick(Talk) 01:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
look harder. It's in small grey font. Do ctrl-F and search wiki. All the way at the very bottom "Text: wikipedia.org.  Images: Public Domain; http://www.commons.wikimedia.org (unless otherwise specified) and 17 U.S. Code § 107 fair use. References: Lewis, Robert G. The Handbook of American Railroads. New York: Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation, 1951, 2nd Edition 1956." I've done some checking and investigated when the domain was registered, which says 2013. I checked history and there are some word-for-word matching contents that predates the domain registry, so there's a pretty good evidence here that the website lifted it from Wikipedia. Either way, I'm not the one who originally added the contents you're alleging is infringing. I removed some contents earlier from the same article, then added back, because, I'm currently checking with RSN over something else. So perhaps it was added prior to the implementation of detection bot, then when I removed something, and later changed mind, it might have triggered a copyright bot? I don't understand why you also removed some of the contents I've added with different sources. You weren't very clear about which portions you find contentious and you reverted things with a very broad brush going far beyond. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, I do see the small notice suggesting the text came from Wikipedia. As I mentioned, had the addition of the material come from a different article within Wikipedia, we do have some rules on how that should be handled to preserve attribution. However, as I understand the situation, you or someone removes the material and then decided it could be restored to the article. That is acceptable, although a clear edit summary would have alerted me to look at the situation differently. You also expressed surprise that my reversion covered more than just the text being restored. that's because it is common practice among editors who work on copyright issues to do or rollback when we encounter (what we believe to be) a copyright concern. I think there are good reasons for this, which I can go into in more detail if you wish. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT

user:49.149.203.100 just made a death threat against me. I already reported her to WP:EMERGENCY. CLCStudent (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CLCStudent, I am not sure why you are contacting me. However, had that been you only contact, I would have advised reporting to Emergency, which is the right place. I am sorry to hear that it happened, but I think the staff that monitors those reports tend to act quickly and responsibly. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says to also contact an admin. CLCStudent (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CLCStudent, That's embarrassing, I didn't know that aspect of the process.
I see that the IP address has been blocked. I don't know whether that block arose from your report (my guess is no).
I do see that the edit in question was still visible. I did a revision deletion, which means it is now only visible to administrators.
I think that's why the advice is to privately contract an administrator to take some steps fairly quickly. I don't have the authority to interact with outside parties so if that needs to be done, that will be done by the staff. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019 at Women in Red

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143


Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reason For Deletion

Why did u deleted the content that I added on hinduism in Pakistan. Minicoyamini (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minicoyamini, as explained in the edit summary :
Reverted good faith edits by Minicoyamini: Copyright issue re https://hinduexistence.org/2010/03/25/discrimination-against-scheduled-caste-hindus-continues-in-pakistan-low-caste-hindu-women-kids-being-sexploited-in-pakistan/
it appeared to be a copyright violation. Let me know if you think I was in error. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the content I added to Media Matters? I quoted a reputable source?

I didn't added -https://hinduexistence.org/2010/03/25/discrimination-against-scheduled-caste-hindus-continues-in-pakistan-low-caste-hindu-women-kids-being-sexploited-in-pakistan/- this as a source or citation for the data's I added Minicoyamini (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minicoyamini, I'm not quite sure of following your point. For the record, we're discussing this article :Hinduism in Pakistan.
Your point literally says that you did not add the page I mentioned as a source. That's not an argument against the copyright concern.
My guess is that you are trying to say you didn't copy from the page I listed, you used a different page which you used as a source. However, while we do want material added to an article to be supported by a reliable source, that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In general, the material added should be in your own words. (There are some exceptions for properly licensed material, and the material that can justifiably be included in quotes, but I don't think that applies here.) Please note that making small changes to the words so that it is not a perfect copy paste does not get around copyright issues. Text that is not sufficiently reworded constitutes a wp:close paraphrase. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

When I come across infringing contents in sources and external links, what do I do?

We crossed path before.. and reading your page, it seems like you're a copyright issue expert, so perhaps you can offer advise. When I come across infringing contents in references and external links such as unauthorized PDF scans of copyrighted material, I replace it with basic citation or non-infringing link, but after doing so, does something else need to be done so that infringing contents can't be restored back on? These are two examples: a PDF scan of copyrighted conference a PDF scan of copyrighted workshop manual

Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&oldid=924956774"