Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 120

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122→Archive 125

Synchronizing talk pages

Curious as to why you don't move talk pages when you move subject pages? Talk:Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton) was not moved to Talk:Commonwealth Stadium during your recent move of the subject page, Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 15:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I carried out a requested move. The template has an option to also move the talk page which is typically checked. I did a number of these this morning, but I can say for certain that I didn't uncheck it, so I'm not sure why the talk page wasn't moved at the same time. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Well now, that is curious! It happened before just the other day when you moved the subject page in this page move request, and in that case you hadn't even closed the discussion, so I closed it and moved the talk page. Very curious. Wonder what's happening. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I was dealing with issues that came up in CSD G6, so not aware of the related discussion, sorry. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No, really, it's okay. Heaven knows my editing sometimes goes into "other editors questioning the merits" phases. You're still up there on a pillar in my book. Happiest of New Years to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Elias Davidsson

Hello, I took information from the indocated sources and put direct quotes into quotation marks. Please explain what was wrong with that. Gabel1960 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Gabel1960, I didn't revert because of the short quote that you placed in quotes.
I don't want to make a copy of what matched the source, as that would be a copyright violation in its own, but I'll just pick one short section:
contradictions, anomalies, puzzling coincidences
That wasn't part of the quote.
I don't know whether you can see this but this is a report showing the overlap between the edit and the source. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping out at CCI. I'm glad to see that you are working together with Hongqilim to clear out their CCI case, and that it's almost done :) I hope to see you around CCI more often. Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: It's usually a thankless task but not this, time thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 21:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

User page/fake article

Hi Sphilbrick. You deleted the userpage of the user Sarkiskhoury twice for WP:U5 after I nom'd it. This user's third try looked OK to begin with, but now I wonder if it's edging again toward WP:FAKEARTICLE territory. I know the line can be a bit blurry... what do you think? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Drm310, Normally I would suggest that a carefully worded warning might help, but I see you've already done that. However, I do see that the page has a template explaining that it is a user page, so it is possible they are confused about what a user page means. It is understandable that they might think a user page should be about the user because that's correct, but they don't understand that it should be primarily about the user as an editor not about their activities outside of Wikipedia. Maybe one more warning/explanation would help? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually put the userpage template there after their initial edit, which was good - hoping it would drive the point home of the page's purpose, and prevent the same WP:NOTWEBHOST content from being posted. It appears that effort was in vain.
I will try to explain it to them one more time. But if that's not successful, I will likely nominate the page for U5 and possibly report them to AIV. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Drm310, sounds good. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

  • The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Hello Sphilbrick, I am really sorry for what I’ve done and thanks for correcting me. I actually just wanted to add more details to it, but now I know that details must be “simple, short and sweet”. Dhruval (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, we were all new to this at one time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Minnesota State Capitol Revision deletion

You had changed visibility of 4 revisions on page Minnesota State Capitol due to Violations of copyright policy. However, the content in question come from the MNOpedia page Workers Killed During State Capitol Construction, 1898–1903 which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported so should not be in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy and not in "blatant violation of the copyright policy" as required to do Revision deletions.
Question: Would it be helpful for me to post that fact in either the Edit summary or the Talk page? Your comments on the matter would be appreciated. Myotus (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Myotus, I did that because our CopyPatrol tool identified the material as matching this site, which is subject to full copyright, but that site does note that the material came from the site you identified does have acceptable licensing.
While you should not have to identify that the source material is acceptably licensed, it is a good practice and will help avoid this type of situation. For examples of how to do that take a look at Environmental_DNA, which has such identifications in a few references including the first one. Sorry about that, my bad. I checked the copyright status of the identified source, and miss that the source had picked up their material from another site which was acceptably licensed. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!! I appreciate it. That is incredibly helpful.
Myotus (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Duncan Reverted Edits

Hello I'm new to creating articles on Wikipedia I notice my new information stated to show notability for the public figure Aaron Duncan was reverted. I notice you said due to copyright no copyright intended. Would it be possible if I can access my edits made and rephrase them. Thanks

@Akim Ernest: Please WP:SIGN your posts. If you turn on email access (in your preferences), I can email you your edit along not sure why you need it as you can find most of it at the soutce.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Emery Battis

Hi. I did take info from an obit but rewrote in draft first before moving to mainspace. The most recent version said "29 percent Violation Unlikely" on Copyvio. Could the most recent version be restored? If not, can most recent version be emailed to me to rework more please?

Note: I've moved it back to draftspace for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emery_Battis

--HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoricalAccountings, this report says 84% overlap. It isn't even good practice to start with a copyrighted source and make some changes to it. In theory, one could change every single word and still have a copyright violation. It is a better practice to look at the source, ideally review multiple sources, then start with a clean sheet of paper and write down the key points in your own words. At the end check back against the original source chance that your memory is too good and you accidentally reproduced too much of it. there are times it's appropriate to email you and edit but I don't think this is one of them. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
HistoricalAccountings, I'll add, it doesn't even qualify as a close paraphrase - you've reproduced entire paragraphs. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

- I definitely checked the most recent draft and it said 29 percent , plus I added lots of additional info written then from compiling other sources none of which I saved. Can it be restored in any way or emailed? I will then leave it in draft until it's checked again or rewrite it in word before adding to draft. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoricalAccountings, I'm not quite sure what to say. I you able to see the iThenticate report? I honestly never remember whether that's a tool that's generally visible only to admins. If you can see it, it will be obvious that you've basically copied the Washington Post obit. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Sorry to bother you but I could use some advice. I am aware that you sometimes respond to requests for an email of the problematic edit so they can work on it off-line. I don't know whether you feel this is always appropriate or only under certain conditions. I've always felt a little uncomfortable emailing a copyright violation to someone but I guess it is better than posting it publicly. Whether fair or not, I've seen the editor HistoricalAccountings several times recently at Copy Patrol, so do not have a good feeling about whether the editor understands our rules. they've asked for a copy oback in f a recent edit. The iThenticate report looks like practically a copy and paste of the Washington Post obit so part of me feels if they want the material they can go to the obit because they didn't do much to it, and part of me is reluctant to email such a blatant violation. They claim a different report only shows a 29% problem. I haven't checked that out— I don't doubt that different tools would give different percentages but that's quite a difference. The editor likes to keep their talk page clear, but a review of the history will show the number of problems. I don't have the bandwidth to act as a mentor, and I'm going over how best to get the editor to understand proper editing, and trying to decide whether emailing the problematic edit is a step in the right direction or not. Any thoughts?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Diannaa was kind enough to email info once before and I rewrote the page and no issues with it since. I do understand the terms and in future will edit offline in Word. Only a small handful of my edits out of thousands have been flagged. I'm still relatively new but learning quickly. I did check the most recent draft at Copyvio and it said 29 percent and I was still working on it. I had been working in draftspace but will work offline in future. If you are willing to email last version, I will use it as framework to rebuild but won't paste it back in as I had several other sources in there, plus info on hisbook etc., not just the one. --HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you offer a link to the iThenticate report directly, you're asked to log in. The way to do it is to give the user a link to the CopyVios report and then ask the user to click on the iThenticate link. The bot has a Turnitin account and is able to therefore view the iThenticate reports. Here is the CopyPatrol report. I have compared the 15:20, February 5, 2021‎ version of the draft with the Washington Post article using this tool, and it shows whole paragraphs are the same, with 64.7% overlap (301 words out of 480). Everything is identical to the Washington Post in the career section, except for two sentences. So my opinion is there's no point sending it via email, because the original Washington Post article can be used as a starting point for a re-write of the career section.— Diannaa (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Diannaa, Thanks, it is often helpful to share the report, and now I know how to do it. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
There's some bits of content I can restore but first I want to check them for copyvio.— Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I am placing the unused citations on the article talk page.— Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Reversed edits

I have found you have reverted some of my edits from Hiyangthang Lairembi Temple. If the case is for copyright, I don't think it has issues. Because most of my edits are based on my own. I removed bolds from the infobox. Added adding internal links for better information. Besides, I also added references reliable to everything I added.

Coming directly to the topic, I removed the term Hinduism. Because as per the references cited, they are irrelevant. Hope you will be helpful with me in future. Haoreima (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Haoreima, You said, " Besides, I also added references reliable to everything I added." references are critical but they don't cure copyright problems. I'm not sure I understand why you think there is not a copyright problem. I you asserting that you wrote the material at this site? or I you saying that the site copied from something you wrote? S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, from the later one. Ok, if you think it needs to be removed, then, I want to draw your attention to individual wise edits I have done. Except for that addition of the copied paragraphs, will you revert back the other edits which I did for better formatting? Haoreima (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Haoreima, Sorry, no. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Robert Rubin and derivatives

Good morning, I have posted a new edit request at Talk:Robert Rubin about his Clinton-era position on derivatives, which you and I had very briefly discussed previously. I've actually written very little new content, mostly pulling in material from existing sections. But I know that you like to dig in and make sure you think it gets the big picture correct, so if you do decide to take this one up, I'll be ready to discuss in more detail. As before, take the time you need, not in a rush here. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Tarbell Eddy

Hello, my apologies for the violation at the Oliver Tarbell Eddy page. I believe I have fixed the issue. Can you check to see if it is acceptable? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, I'll let someone else check, thanks for the note. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI thread mentioning you

See WP:ANI#Editor adding lots of copyvios DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Username question

Hi there. Here's a question regarding when a username crosses the line of "promotional", instead of being simply a fan of something? There's a user, Namecokid47, who spends most of their time editing Namco and Bandai Namco articles. Would you consider that a breach of the naming guidelines? They've been on WP for a few years. Onel5969 TT me 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969,
My knee-jerk assessment was that the username is a problem but after little more thought, I'm not fully convinced it's a problem. My suggestion is to open a conversation with the user and simply asked if they are closely associated with the company. If they are then they need to be reminded about COI disclosures and that they should not directly edit those articles. My guess is that they will respond that they do not have a close association but are simply a fan. If that's the answer, then it's worth pointing out that their name could leave a misleading impression, and a rename would clear that up, but I would insist on rename. My thinking is that an employee or agent of the company would not use "kid" as part of the username, and that's more likely to indicate a fan. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the assessment. Indirectly, I did bring it up with the user, see User talk:Namcokid47#February 2021, due to what I deem the creation of a fork article. I was roundly attacked for my bringing up a potential COI. I would have agreed with the idea that this was a simple fan, which they profess to be, until I read their response in that interaction, which seems quite advanced in tone, grammar, structure and conceptual knowledge for a "kid". Onel5969 TT me 15:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969, This is looking odd. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Onel5969, That went well.<sarc off> What a curious situation. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Sorry to have brought all that down on you. I find it a bit ridiculous. I've been "templated", pretty recently in fact (see this, although I definitely agree mine was more aggressive. But the COI issue was one which still hasn't been addressed completely, imho. And the edit which caused all of this is definitely a content fork from the target article. Thanks anyway for taking a look at the situation. Onel5969 TT me 23:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

About recent edit reversion

Hello there Sphilbrick.

My reason for those edits today was just to transfer text from page Hyaenodontidae to page Hyaenodonta because it fits more on page Hyaenodonta and not on the other page. I only copy/pasted and little bit edit that text (as you can see history of page Hyaenodonta here before your edit) from page Hyaenodontidae (edit I made on this page today). And that is complete story behinde my edits.

Now, look at text in that link you put in parenthetical comment of your edit. You can obviously see that blogpost was made on 16.12.2015 at 17:21, and last change was on 18.06.2020 23:13. And now compare that to this old revision of page Hyaenodontidae made on 29 April 2008 at 05:35 by user:Apokryltaros; or this this old revision made on 15 October 2015 at 08:36 by user:John of Reading. Do you see something fishy here with this "copyright" violations? That "copyrighted" text was already here on Wikipedia before that blogpost. This report of potential copyright you got is nothing but false.

Good luck and best wishes.--The Explaner (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Explaner,
Thanks for the explanation. I have some standard wording that I use but I modified it with the "I hope I'm wrong", because something told me that something wasn't quite right, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Your explanation makes sense. For future use, please be aware that copying from one article to another is perfectly acceptable but it should be done in a particular way as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Stuart

Thanks, but some stuff was missed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Davidwr, I think I got them all now. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_120&oldid=1017889868"