User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 98

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

→

Archive 105

No copyright issue

See "This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/."[1]

See at the bottom of the page.[2] CC BY 4.0 is a compatible license with Wikipedia. See WP:MEDCOPY. I think I can go back to this version since there is no copyright concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I redid the edit and reverted myself. All that needs to be done is to restore the content. I did add the CC-notice to the citation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

OK,

It is annoying (but not your fault) that some sites, place a full copyright message at the bottom of their page, then embed a different license part way up the page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

See at the beginning of the page after the abstract: "This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/."[3]

Both messages at the beginning of the page and at the bottom of the page are the same license. CC BY 4.0 is compatible with Wikipedia. I checked again. They do not have a different license on the page. Also see the Copyright Clearance Center’s Rights Link service. See "Articles published under the CC-BY permit unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited."[4] QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Just to make sure we are on the same page, I'm not disagreeing that the material may be licensed acceptably. My only point is that this page

Has this message at the bottom of the page:

Copyright © 2018 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. All rights reserved.

It can lead to confusion. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That note at the bottom of the page seems to be on every page. However, it does not override the CC-BY compatible license. The attribution is inside the citation in the article. Are we good? QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, Yes. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I also double checked all the other content I attributed under a compatible license to make sure they also fall under a compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Diannaa can help review my edit. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The PDF file confirms it is under the CC BY 4.0 license which is a compatible license according to WP:MEDCOPY. See "open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https:// creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by/ 4. 0/."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is compatibly licensed and is marked as such here, here, and here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. For now I will go ahead and restore the content. If there are any concerns we can discuss this further. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I made the change since it is compatible. Sphilbrick, please let me know if you have any concerns with me restoring the content. I can self-revert if there is evidence it is not compatible. Also the edit history can be deleted if it turns out it is not compatible. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, No concerns S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References

ECDC EARS-Net

Hello, thank you for reviewing my edit of this page. I am not clear on where the potential copyright issue is? EARS-Net is a non-propriety entity of significant public health importance therefore, one would be keen to have this outlined within the parent article without copyright issues. Please could you outline the specific issues so that they can be addressed? Thank you. Ngdomara (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ngdomara, The text you added seems substantially similar to the text on this page

Do you agree?

That page has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page:

© European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) 2019

On occasion, even pages marked as being subject to for copyright have some exceptions and incorporate material that is licensed in a way that can be used in Wikipedia. I did not notice such a license — please pointed out if I missed it or let me know if you have other reasons why you think inclusion of copyrighted material is allowed within our copyright policy. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

SphilbrickThank you for replying so promptly.Will review context in avoid substantial similarities. In terms of copyright notice- this appears throughout the entire ECDC website.This website provides the best informatinn in relation to the activities of the ECDC. The ECDC is funded by and for the participating European countries. As an public body could this be included within the permitted material?

Ngdomara (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ngdomara, In short, no. If subject to full copyright, it can be included only if they provide a suitable license. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

University of the Free State

Why did you revert the edits done to the page back to its original form? I was still busy citing all the relevant sections to bring it up to date. I was busy citing the University of the Free States own information on their Wikipedia page? M.Müller31 (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

M.Müller31, The material you are adding came from the University's webpage which is subject to full copyright. You must write in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Thank-you, it is good to hear from you. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chipspeech

I just updated the page Chipspeech as it was out of date. The software is on version 1.7 and has two new character. Why did you delete the updates?

https://www.plogue.com/products/chipspeech.html - the characters of "Voder" and "Sam" are new.

https://www.plogue.com/downloads.html - you can see here the latest DL is 1.7.

Would you kindly correct this and reinstate the changes? Just because I have not logged in does not mean they were not legit edits.2.102.217.198 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary that appears to be a copyright issue. Do you disagree? (It had nothing to do with being logged in a low if you aren't logged in here I can't ping you.) S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not fully explained, and still is not an excuse for deleting the updated information. If you wish to dispute copyright, thats fine but you should not remove the information that updated the page about Chipspeechs update to its software. To simply undo/delete my edit without leaving the new information on Chipspeech being updated is pure lazy editing as you couldn't be bothered to edit to remove the copyright, you just removed the ENTIRE set of edits. The result is you clumsily removed the valid information and that makes it sloppy. Please, I don't care if you have an issue with copyright, you have no excuse to be such a lazy and sloppy edit, now would you kindly fix your mistake? As you can tell, I'm not happy because I'm now not sure what to do to even update that page. You already undid what I was adding, and your "copyright" note ignored everything else that had already been added to the page under the same idea. What else can I do, re-add it and watch it be deleted again.

No, please fix the mess you made. 2.102.217.198 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not the way we do things. I'm not even going to contest your description of "lazy and sloppy". However, I am going to suggest that if you are not contributing to reviewing the thousands of potential copyright issues that pop up every single week, you aren't fully appreciating the challenge. A "best practices" approach to reviewing a potential copyright issue, if we had sufficient volunteers, might mean that we should very carefully identify exactly what words are infringing, remove only those, and then go in and manually re-edit the article to make sure it now makes sense. However, there's a small handful of regulars (literally fewer than a dozen reasonably active) and thousands of reports. It's like drinking from a firehose. My practice is that if I find a potential copyright issue, the safest thing to do is a rollback, and then we can enter into a discussion with the editor to see if it's a false positive and can be restored, or if some other course of action makes sense. There aren't enough volunteers to carry out what you would like to have carried out. If you have better ideas about how we should do this, I'm all ears. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia also asks you be helpful and you are not which goes against what it does also. I'm not going to re-add this myself because of a long history of this place and my otto is "if Wikipedia has an issue, I have an issue with it". So you instead now have a dated page. You still refuse to fix your edit, I now refuse to fix your edit. And since this is a voluntary site, I have 0% commitment to do so either. IT doesn't matter on the copyright issue or not, you still were sloppy and removed the notes about the update to the software, if you can't fix it nor won't, and judging by the list of complaints against you, I take its all been said before. Therefore I just waste my time. IF being helpful to your fellow editors here was a prize, friend you are not even on the top 100 list for that one. 2.102.219.101 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I explained before that your edit was undone because there were copyright issues. You haven't disputed that there was a copyright issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Snapped

Hi there. I got a notification that my edits to the Snapped page were reverted due to a copyright issue. Can I get more information on how these episode summaries (from TV Guide etc.) are an issue for copyright? I have noticed a lot of other TV show pages that have this information and I'm wondering if there's anything to be aware of when adding them. -Einstein95 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Einstein95, Copying from TV Guide is a violation of copyright. I don't know which other pages you think have problems but if there are other problems, please point them out. Editors are permitted to add material in their own words but not copy or closely paraphrase copyrighted material. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding two recently deleted additions

Hello Sphilbrick.

The other day, in the article Cyborg, I added the two real life "borgs" Rob Spence and Jerre Jalava in the section "Actual cyborgization attempts". However, these two additions were removed by you; the addition about the 'Eyeborg' Rob Spence was removed because of copyright issues? Could you clarify, please? The other addition, Jerry Jalava, was however removed without any explanation at all, which should have been provided in the section of the article's talkpage titled "No mention of Rob Spence, the "Eyeborg"?" where I announced my two additions directly after adding them.

So, if you would be so kind as to clarify your edits.

Thank you. Okama-San (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Okama-San, As explained in the edit summary, your edit to Cyborg appeared to incorporate material found at this site.

It is our practice, when addressing an edit that appears to include copyrighted information, to rollback the edit or edits, which may also undo material that is not a violation of our copyright policy. Let me know if you need further information. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes? I reconned that the Telegraph would be a valid reference as other references in the Cyborg article likewise used the Telegraph? Or do you, with "Include copyright information", mean that the addition contained word sections lifted from the article? It would be much appreciated with an example of what would constitute a valid addition of the two subjects, for example how the previously made additions could be rewritten to be accepted.

Thank you. Okama-San (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Okama-San, Yes, of course, the Telegraph is an acceptable reference. however, in most cases the material should be written in your own words. In rare cases, it might be appropriate to incorporate some exact wording, but those instances should be short and enclosed in quotation marks or set off as a block quote.

Regarding a possible rewrite, you might try checking at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions where questions like this are answered. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I reworked the text on Rob Spence, and would like to know what you think about it;

" Rob Spence, a Toronto-based film-maker, who titles himself a real life "Eyeborg", severally damaged his right eye in a shooting accident on his grandfather's farm as a child. Many years later, in 2005, he decided to have his ever deteriorating and now technically blind eye surgically removed, whereafter he wore an eye patch for some time before he later, after having played for some time with the idea of installing a camera instead, contacted professor Steve Mann at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an expert in wearable computing and cyborg technology.

Under Mann's guidance, Spence, at age 36, created a prototype in the form of a miniature camera which could be fitted inside his prostethic eye; an invention would come to be named by Time magazine as one of the best inventions of 2009. The bionic eye records everything he sees and contains a 1.5 mm-square, low-resolution video camera, a small round printed circuit board, a wireless video transmitter, which allows him to transmit what he is seeing in real time to a computer, and a 3-voltage rechargeable Varta microbattery. The eye is however not connected to his brain, and has neither restored his actual vision. Additionally, Spence has also installed a laser-like LED light in one version of the prototype. "

How about it? Okama-San (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Okama-San, Seems fine, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Your speedy deletion nomination of List of birds of Shenandoah National Park

Please withdraw your speedy deletion proposal. The article is not a copy of nor even derived from the South Carolina page cited as the "source" (http://collegegirlwebcams-cg.blogspot.com/2017/10/list-of-birds-of-south-carolina-birds.html). Yes, if you look at the South Carolina page and compare it to the Shenandoah list you will see some resemblance. That's because the blog's author has copied the entire Wikipedia article "List of birds of South Carolina" (without citing the source) and added photos, and most lists of birds (of US states) follow the same format and have the same family text. Also, look at the Shenandoah list's cited sources; you'll see that the principal one is public (US government). Craigthebirder (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Craigthebirder, I see that you attempted to identify that the source of the material in that article came from other Wikipedia articles, but I only see it now because you have explained it to me.

I guess that's what you meant by your edit summary: "family texts derived from the families' articles - see them for original sources", but to be honest, I didn't understand the edit summary when I read it and I suggest that not all readers will know what it means.

It is acceptable to copy material from other Wikipedia articles but per our attribution requirements, we've identified ideal language to be used. You can see that language in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

If you could add an edit summary (you will probably have to do a dummy edit), using that language, I'll be happy to withdraw the propose speedy deletion. I'll also note that had you included that edit summary originally, I never would have proposed it for speedy deletion. I probably come across a dozen examples a day where someone has copied material from another Wikipedia article. When they use the suggested language, I market as acceptable. If they don't use the suggested language I might catch it but sometimes I miss it. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(1) The speedy deletion nomination alleged a copyright violation, which I explained was not true. (2) Now you cite an edit summary phrase as the problem. I've used that phrase while creating or updating many other "List of birds of..." articles (I'd estimate at least three dozen) for over a year now and you're the first to object to it. The phrase is similar to that used by User:SchreiberBike in many other articles before me; he wrote "Attribution: Bird descriptions were copied from their respective articles. Please see the history of those pages for full attribution." And I didn't originate most of the family summaries; they were written as early as 2007 when many of the lists of birds of US states were created. The ones I wrote, or heavily edited, are derived (which is the word I use), not copied, from the families' articles. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Craigthebirder, I am puzzled by your response.

Before I directly respond to your comments, let me emphasize that while not the serious birder you are, many of my friends are. Just a few minutes ago, I received an email about the 2019 Cornell small grant program related to bird conservation and I plan to share it with my board to see if we can apply for a grant for Bird conservation. Wikipedia articles in general are uneven but there are some bright spots and my impression is that our coverage of birds is excellent. For anything you've contributed, I thank you.

That said, I proposed an exceedingly simple solution to a problem and I don't get why you are fighting it.

The CSD template does state that the edit is a copyright infringement. What isn't clear is whether that means it's a violation of copyright law or our copyright policy. I recently arranged to have some Wikipedia wording changed — it made reference to copyright law when it should have made reference to copyright policy. Perhaps that needs to be done here as well. You might be technically correct that the edit is not a violation of copyright law but I believe its a violation of our copyright policy. I don't wish to waste our legal staffs time determining whether your opaque edit summary satisfies our requirements for attribution. I trust you've been around long enough to be aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. in other words, the fact that you views that edit summary multiple times in the past doesn't mean it meets our requirements. Perhaps it does. If you want to reach out to legal and see what they think go for it but it seems to me the much easier solution is to simply add an edit summary that accurately identifies the source. That's the polite thing to do to give proper credit to editors like you who have contributed their time and get almost nothing for it except satisfaction and occasionally the knowledge that someone knows they've contributed.

Unfortunately, I have real life events which need to be intended to or I would simply do the edit summary for you. It shouldn't take long but I'd have to research where the material came from (which presumably you know), so it should be easier for you. I seriously don't get why you are objecting. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Craigthebirder, if a dummy edit seems too difficult, you can use the {{copied}} template to provide attribution for the content you copied. If you can't do that either, please just say which article you copied the content from, and either Sphilbrick or I will provide the attribution for you. In general, if you copy content from other Wikipedia articles without proper attribution, you can expect that it will often be flagged as a copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There are about 400 lists in the series "List of birds of ...". When the first one was created, I suspect the text for each family was copied from the articles about those bird families at that time. That was long before I became a Wikipedian. I had added the edit summary: "Attribution: Bird descriptions were copied from their respective articles. Please see the history of those pages for full attribution." to each of those articles, thinking that was sufficient. In this case Craigthebirder's first edit summary "family texts derived from the families' articles - see them for original sources" seems to say the same thing.

I am not terribly familiar with copyright law or policy, and I don't know if either of those truly meet the need as is now expected. I originally copied that phrase from Diannaa at this edit as I discussed with her at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 50#List of birds of ....

If that's not now sufficient, it would be a major project to attribute specific phrases in the series "List of birds of ..." to specific diffs of articles. That's what the {{Copied}} template asks for. A null edit with references to each family article, which would be different for each list, would be nearly as big a project. Do you think that's necessary? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that your version of the edit summary is quite opaque, and doesn't actually include any of the specific wording from my suggested edit summary (in particular, the word "attribution" is missing, and you don't make it clear that you've copied from one Wikipedia article to another). The edit summary I suggested could be improved upon as well; I would suggest "Attribution: Bird descriptions were copied from their respective Wikipedia articles. Please see the history of those pages for full attribution." I think if you do this as the edit summary at the time you add the content, it should be obvious which articles you intend to attribute. Adding attribution retroactively is still possible; you could make a list on the respective talk pages of the articles you copied; or add a dummy edit to each article where you performed such copying, with an edit summary such as "Attribution: Bird descriptions I added on such-and-such a date were copied from their respective Wikipedia articles. Please see the history of those pages for full attribution."— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for not being a more active participant in this discussion. I won't bore you with details, but several real life issues and emergencies have piled up, and my time for Wikipedia which has been severely limited may drop to zero. I'll just pass on, because there's no reason that you should know this, but Justlettersandnumbers is very active in copyright issues, and Diannaa, well, Diannaa does more than both of us combined by a wide margin, and is the most respected copyright expert in Wikipedia at this time so I think both of them for weighing in. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In the future I will use the "Attribution:" wording but will substitute "derived" rather than "copied" because I didn't, and don't, copy the originating article's prose. Thank you, Sphilbrick, for removing the speedy deletion nomination, and I hope you're able to return to Wikipedia soon. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Derived from" or "adapted from" would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

File:Pictorial Key to the Tarot.jpg

Can you please return the deleted revision of this file. It's now been established PD and I'll be moving it to Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I hope someone else can help - see notice at the top of this page. If someone needs my permission to undo the deletion, consider it granted. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I got it. So sorry to hear about your brother. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Rabhan

Hi. I came across Jeff Rabhan, which was almost entirely copied from his bio at NYU-Tisch. The WP:COPYVIO text was inserted by User:Jeffrabhan here at 2017-03-01T15:51:10Z. You deleted his user page 9 months earlier for CSD U5. I rolled Jeff Rabhan back to the prior version after comparing (cleanly) against the current and 2017-05-01 archive of the Tisch bio page. Do you want to address the COI and COPYVIO issue with him and/or do something further? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I revision-deleted copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted User Page

My user page says that you deleted it. I believe that I had marked it for deletion some time ago, but I honestly can't remember. In any event, is there some version preserved somewhere or a way to restore any of it? Can you confirm if I had marked it for deletion or did you delete it for some other reason? Robert Goodis (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(tps) You had marked it for deletion, and Sphilbrick deleted it. It contains some personal information, so I am sending you a copy via email so you can view it beforetimes. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging