User talk:Sphilbrick

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Follow Up on Proposed Changes

I work in marketing at Akamai Technologies. I proposed some changes to the Akamai Wikipedia page a couple weeks ago per WP:COI, but haven’t gotten a response.

I got your name from WikiProject Cooperation and was hoping you might be willing to review the proposed changes. Billykamenides (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Billykamenides, I wish I could offer but I'm up to my eyeballs with another project. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Billykamenides, I will try to find some time later today. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Billykamenides, I took a quick look at your edit request.

As a general rule, it helps if you can spoon feed the potential editor. a good editor is going to want to do some of their own research, but you should make it as easy on them as possible.

As a positive note, providing the mock-up text with proposed changes in red is very helpful. I wish other editor's would follow suit.

However, let's discuss some of the proposed edits.

Global

You want to call the company Global rather than National. Fine, but what's the rationale? Obviously, while I could do some research and confirm that it is a global company, this is a perfect example where you should provide a reference confirming that it is a global company and I can simply check it, and check further if I have any concerns.

“providing web and Internet security services”

I believe you but I can't add it without seeing that in a published reliable source.

“with more than 50 additional offices worldwide.”

This is a good example of corporate speak which is not ideal for an encyclopedia. I don't doubt that you can find hundreds of examples in existing Wikipedia articles, but if you look to other Wikipedia articles for guidance of wording look for good or featured articles. My guess is you won't find such phrasing in those articles. I'd be much happier with a phrase such as “office locations in n countries”, supported by a reference.

Corporate headquarters.

I can imagine how proud the employees are two have new substantial headquarters. I say this from personal experience because I engineered I moved from a small office into a larger office a couple decades ago. However, while interesting to employees it's not all that encyclopedic. The location of the current corporate headquarters deserves an entry in an info box, but not much more.

Abandoned services

An encyclopedia article is not simply a snapshot of the current situation. The company used to offer the services and does no longer. It would be better to have a paragraph talking about services that used to be offered along with the rationale for why they were stopped along with sources explaining the change. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I have added citations and incorporated your feedback into a revised set of proposed changes. Would you be willing to take a fresh look at the revised version? Billykamenides (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Billykamenides, I have back-to-back meetings, extending into the evening, starting in minutes. I'll try to look at this tomorrow, but this isn't the first such promise, so Ping me if you don't hear from me by tomorrow mid-day. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

<Thank you. Pinging as requested.> Billykamenides (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Billykamenides, Thanks for the ping, I will look now. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Billykamenides,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 15:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Administrator changes

Cabayi • Lee Vilenski

Boing! said Zebedee

Jonny-mt • MarkGallagher • PeaceNT

Money emoji → Moneytrees

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork • WereSpielChequers

CheckUser changes

NativeForeigner

Oversight changes

Someguy1221

Daniel Case

Guideline and policy news

• There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

• There is a plan for new requirements for user signatures. You can give feedback.

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

• The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

send me my content to talk page

hi, also your revert is not correct because of part of them from other related article. all of copyright text about only two line that i can reform them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slobsows (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Slobsows, If you copied within Wikipedia, then this type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording 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.

I undid the revdel, please feel free to revert, but please add the attribution.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue re airwaysoffice.com/antarctica (TW) thank Tag: Undo??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Antarctic_territories

airwaysoffice.com copy from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slobsows (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

ok, Thanks .Slobsows (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Question why new post was pulled down

Hi I'm a new editor trying to add some value to Wikipedia, slowly but surely. Recently I created my first new post but it was pulled down a day later and I'm not sure why. I would like to understand why it was pulled down so that I can learn and progress in this community. The post was for Global Voice Group. Looking forward to your feedback. Regards Ninja Theory TM (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ninja Theory TM, I'm confused. I see a draft named Global Voice Group but it was deleted in 2019.

Here are your contributions:

Special:Contributions/Ninja_Theory_TM

Is it one of them? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it on my list of edits. I did read the various guidelines thoroughly before posting but perhaps I did something wrong when I posted it? Below is a screenshot I captured. If I search I only find this page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Voice_Group Ninja Theory TM (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja Theory TM (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

:Ninja Theory TM, If you look at the globe in the top left, you will see La Enciclopedia Libre See Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español for more details. It is something other than the English Wikipedia, which is where you are now. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ninja Theory TM, I looked but did not find that article at that Wiki. The url may provide some guidance. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you did provide the url. Yes, you were attempting to create an English language article in the Spanish Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ninja Theory TM, I may have over-analyzed this. You might simply have been at the Spanish Wikipedia. I don't find the article, but perhaps it was removed because it is in English. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I was wondering about that. How silly of me.. I navigated there through my research. I guess I should have created the page from scratch. I will redo it. Ninja Theory TM (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Charles Benninger

You had just finished rev-delling copyvios from Christopher Charles Benninger when the same IP re-added tham - could please I ask you to revert these latest additions and "semi" the page - as I suspect blocking the IP is unlikely to work - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Arjayay, No bother, happy to see that it was handled so quickly. Thanks for what you are doing - I looked at several potential copyright violations this morning and you were already on top of them. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, by A N Other, sorry to bother you - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry

About that I don’t know that, I apologise to you. Tahaaleem (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Tahaaleem, not a problem, my experience is that this isn't as well known as should be the case. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Rev-del request

Hi, Sphilbrick - could you please Rev-del the unsourced accusations made today @ 17.16 at Waheed Alli, Baron Alli - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Arjayay,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

College Of Fisheries And Ocean Sciences

I'm a little confused here, it is now ok to move a page based on a private off-wiki discussion, presumably with the obvious paid editor who had just been editing the page? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, No, it is OK, as always, to move a page when someone points out that the school name doesn't match the title, and I do my own independent Google search and confirm the commonname according to sources. FWIW, the name I moved it to was NOT the name they asked for. I include the OTRS number in case subsequent issues arise and I want to refer to it, so it isn't included as a rationale for the move, it is included for my own reference. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Topic of Rhoel_Gallardo

Hi! Sphilbrick, in despite of copyright issue. I will clarify that the editing and researching on good paraphrase and still ongoing. May I please to return the last edit to make some further studies needed to improve. in the copyright violation on the certain articles, this is to inform that the revision will be reliable and efficient than previously made. thorough investigation on the article shall be consistent and pass to your qualification.

Sincerely User:Wikirenzon

@Wikirenzo: Not everyone realizes this, but we do not permit copyright violations in any version of the article, so it is not acceptable to copy text in and then edit to remove the violation. That must be done externally. Ask if this brief explanation is insufficient.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dino Costa

Hello Sphilbrick, an IP you dealt with at Dino Costa has returned to add more unsourced content. Jerm (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can I provide Bwfmuseum site as reference in Han Aiping because it has much valuable information available of the above player? Zoglophie (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoglophie, You can use it as a reference, but unless the material has been acceptably licensed, you generally need to rewrite in your own words. (There are some exceptions for pure lists, and for short quotations, if marked as quotations.) S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Zoglophie (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	The Women in Red barnstar
	You certainly deserve a Women in Red barnstar for all the informative articles you have written on women in sports over the past 12 years. Really impressive work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott:Thank-you, I really appreciate this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Naval Historical Foundation

Good Afternoon.

I am attempting to update the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Historical_Foundation

I am confused as to why my edits were reverted. While I was quoting from the organization's website in my edits to the 'history' section, and understand that revert, I also put in considerable time editing and updating the 'officer' section of the page, including adding links to appropriate wiki pages. It was (and now is, again) considerably out of date. I can take this a learning lesson in both best edit practices and best edit-notation practices, however I would still like the officer section to be properly up-to-date.

Thank you for your help.

Violations of copyright policy are not acceptable. It is not uncommon that an edits, or a sequence of edits by a single editor may contain a mixture of copyrighted text, and some original, non-infringing wording. It is not uncommon for a new editor to ask why all of the edits were reverted, rather than to tease out only the infringing material. Unfortunately, we get literally hundred os infringing edits every week, and there aren't enough volunteers to take the time required to tease out exactly what potion of the edit is acceptable, and what is not. For that reason, it is accepted practice, when encountering a sequence of edits containing a copyright issue, to do a rollback of the sequence, and let editor adding the material take care to re-add only non-infringing material.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sbland.navyhistory: If you sign your posts (use ~~~~), it is easier to respond.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand (it was an honest mistake, however, and not willful copyright infringement). I'll try again with the other edits, maybe they'll stick this time. Sbland.navyhistory (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sbland.navyhistory, Good luck. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Apogee Electronics

Dear Sphilbrick,

I am new to Wikipedia and have a question regarding Apogee Electronics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_Electronics

Besides being a manufacturer, they also own a studio called Apogee Studio - last time I copied the information from their website https://apogeedigital.com/apogee-studio - but this caused the 'blatant copyright violation' tag.

I understand now that copying text is not allowed - so how about I add the following text:

Apogee Studios Apogee Studios is a recording studio in Santa Monica, CA, owned by Bob Clearmountain. It is located at the headquarter of Apogee Electronics. The performance venue is also home to KCRW's Apogee Sessions.

external sources: https://www.kcrw.com/music/apogeestudio https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhochman/2018/09/03/the-180-seat-invite-only-los-angeles-music-venue-thats-attracting-arena-rockers/#3366b4657cf5

Would it be okay to post this? If not please let me know how I can improve the wording. I really appreciate your support since I want to get it right this time. Thanks so much in advance!

Kind regards, FridaAlpin FridaAlpin (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

FridaAlpin, I responded here S Philbrick(Talk) 11:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Herd - Page Deletion

Hi. I created a page for Thomas Herd yesterday which was tagged immediately for lack of notablity. I intended to edit and add more information backed by independent sources but due to Mr Thomas's Instagram post, an inquiry into 'paid editing' was initiated.

The reason I am leaving a message on your page is to ask for guidance as to how I can avoid such issues in future - as you are the administrator who deleted the page recently. Is there a way to contest deletion or 'paid editing' claims? Or, what are some things I can do to avoid these issues in future. I'd be really grateful for your guidance. Raohow (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Raohow, My actions had nothing to do with the question about paid editing. I hadn't seen those issues until I look just now.

You created an article in article space which is acceptable (but rare) for experienced editors but not a good step for a new editor. Actually, I'm an experienced editor with 12 years of experience and 150000 edits and I wouldn't start an article in article space. The reason is that the very first edit has to be an acceptable article. Not necessarily complete, but it has to meet all of the requirements for an article such as passing notability and being adequately referenced.

That’s typically not easy to do unless you create it offline and then load it in to article space.

If you want to work on an article the best thing to do is to start in a user Subpage or in draft space. Articles in those places do not have to meet the requirements of notability until they are moved into main space although I will caution that even in Subspace or draft space, copyright violations are not permitted.

The best place for new editors to create a new article is here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation S Philbrick(Talk) 21:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Townsville, Queensland

Hi, can you please revert the edits you made to Townsville, Qld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Townsville for everything but the changes to the "history" part of the city. I made a few other edits that were separate to that section that were removed too. I find Wikipedia very very frustrating. There seems to be a bit of double standard going on as I referenced the Townsville City council page from which the information came from, there are few other sources online to obtain such information. I know there is a general copyright notice on their page but on another section of the site it says "The information contained herein is the property of the Townsville City Council. Information may be downloaded, displayed, printed and copied in an unaltered form only. It is not to be distributed or used for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Chief Executive Officer of the Townsville City Council. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. https://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/about-council/news-and-publications/website-information

Now in reference to the double standard I see references to the Melbourne City Council website on the history of the city of Melbourne wikipedia page and they state in the clearest terms on their site that no information may be used not even in unaltered form https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/pages/copyright.aspx If the Townsville City Council allows display in unaltered form is there a way to revert the edits but include a notice or something indicating it is in unaltered form?

Kind Regards Greditdesu (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Greditdesu, I am very sympathetic to the fact that new editors can be frustrated. I'm personally unhappy that when an editor makes a series of edits, some of which are copyright issues, and others are perfectly fine, that we do a rollback and undo all of them. Why do we do this? Because if you take a quick glance at the Copypatrol leaderboard you will see that there are tens of thousands of reports of potential copyright issues, and not much more than a dozen active editors trying to deal with all of these reports. Teasing out what may be acceptable from what is not acceptable is an order of magnitude more complicated than simply rolling back edits with copyright issues. (That said, in many cases I have volunteered to work with the editor in question when such situations occur.) If you have some thoughts on how to recruit a hundred or more editors with copyright experience to handle these issues differently, I'm all ears.

However, your frustration appears to be, unless I'm misreading you, that you think the Townsville City council page limitations permit the inclusion of that material. In short, that's not true. Doubly false. Both the commercial limitation and the "unaltered form" limitation mean this material CANNOT be used in Wikipedia. I don't believe we have a double standard, I think you are not fully familiar with Wikipedia:Copyrights which clearly excludes the use of such material. (It is understandable that people think that because Wikipedia is viewed as a noncommercial enterprise that a prohibition on commercial use would not affect us, but that position is incorrect.) S Philbrick(Talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmel Art Association

Sphilbrick: Thanks for your concern. I have updated the wiki page, Carmel Art Association by deleting text I got from their website and changed setences to be in my own words. The article is important as it is referenced from many other wiki articles, e.g. Jo Mora and other Carmel artists. --Greg Henderson 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank-you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Please let me know if you can review my updates and when the "db-copyvio" banner can be taken off the article. I have removed all copyright infringements in the article. Thanks! --Greg Henderson 20:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for cleaning this up. (Remember to sign your posts by adding 4 tildes )S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Thanks! When I signed my post above I selected the signature and timestamp icon, which places the following: --Greg Henderson 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC). If I add 4 tildes it does the same: Greg Henderson 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC). Am I missing something?

Yes. I have a script, which helps with an autoreply, it does the indent correctly, and starts with a ping, but the script doesn't work for me when you post. In addition, you are required to have a link to your talk page in your signature, I think, and that isn't there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Try signing with 4 tildes, and I'll show you the difference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

From Wp:Signatures

Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page;

S Philbrick(Talk) 16:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingdom Force

Sorry about that, Sphilbrick. I was wondering if anyone else thought to create an article on this show. Do you know anyone else who can make one?--ZanyDragon (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

ZanyDragon, Sorry I don't. There may be a Wikipedia:WikiProject where you can ask, but I don't know. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I was reminded of the time I got banned from TV Tropes.--ZanyDragon (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166 May offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Email

Hi. Thanks for your friendly notice. Is there any other way I can get in touch with you? Maybe you can send and receive emails with your alternative account. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, I tried sending you an email S Philbrick(Talk) 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonmetal reversion

A really unfortunate situation

Here's the content you removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nonmetal&type=revision&diff=954357669&oldid=954352382 As a long standing WP editor I'd appreciate a notification before you unilaterally revert me. This includes, judging by the article history, making some of my contributed material apparently irretrievable: curprev 00:40, 2 May 2020‎ Sandbh talk contribs‎ m 119,686 bytes +4‎ →‎Cross-cutting relationships curprev 00:36, 2 May 2020‎ Sandbh talk contribs‎ 119,682 bytes +589‎ →‎Bibliography: +1; add to Moss curprev 00:33, 2 May 2020‎ Sandbh talk contribs‎ 119,093 bytes +624‎ →‎Cross-cutting relationships: +P and S; S and Se If you'd bothered to contact me I would've have explained that my edits were sourced from material for which I own the copyright, and agreed to make available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Yes, I'm pissed off. Especially so since I can't even revert your edit. You messed up my day real well. There are ways and ways of monitoring and rectifying copyright breaches. This isn't one of them. Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, It can be easily retrieved if it isn't a copyright issue. No, we review several thousand potential copyright issues every month, and the process would grind to a halt if we reached out and queried every editor before reverting. In under 1% of my reverts, it turns out that the material is properly licensed, and in those rare cases, I am happy to restore it. You haven't yet explained why text matching that of a Springer publication, with the footer "© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature." is actually acceptably licensed. I am aware that some journals have an annoying habit of posting a full copyright notice at the bottom of the page, but then embedding some CC licensed material in the page; I looked for such a notice and did not see it. Point it out to me and I can fully restore your edit. As a "long standing WP editor", you must know that is easy. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, Most "long standing WP editor"s know that inclusion of text that is published elsewhere, even if properly licensed, will trigger a report at CopyPatrol, and make sure to note the licensing in an edit summary. I see many of these in the reports and mark them as acceptable. You did not. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, I looked at the source, and now see the license. As hinted above, they are one of the annoying journals who embed CC licensed material in the page. I will undo the RevDel, but I see you have redone the edit. Had you merely asked and pointed out the license, it would have been simple to revert. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, I note that your re-edits still did not identify the license in the edit summary, and show up in CopyPatrol. If another reviewer had seen them, you might have been reverted again, or perhaps they might have noticed the CC I missed. In any event, I have marked them in CopyPatrol so they won't get reverted, but please follow the conventions that are well known to long standing editors. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC) No, I don't expect you to reach out to every editor, only those of long-standing (June 2011) and with multiple edits (16,000) who could reasonably be expected to be copyright careful. You only have to do this once, and that editor then knows what to look out for in future. No, I wasn't aware of CopyPatrol. Like the vast majority of editors, I probably know no less than 1% of the innumerable Wikipedia rules and such. Your response is based on assuming all I had to do was merely ask, point out the licence, and it would have been simple to revert. You don't walk in my shoes. You have no idea how well you messed up my day. All because of the absence of a simple courtesy. You could have asked yourself why a long-standing editor would suddenly post so much seemingly copyvio material. You could have alerted me to the licensing requirement. I would've learned something, thanked you for your courtesy, and an added a note to an edit summary. Instead you wasted my time and I wasted your time. Brilliant. Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, I'm moving on. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, as a "Master Editor IV entitled to display an Orichalcum Editor Star" (don't make me laugh) it's easier to do that than to show some civility to a fellow editor. Oh, I forgot. I must have gotten my 2.5 FA bronze stars via mass copyvio! You don't give a crap, of course. Thanks for encouraging me to keep editing, Move on indeed! Nothing to see here! Sandbh (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Sandbh, I actually composed a response, explaining your error, but I decided this silly vendetta of yours wasn't worth the time, and I changed my response to say that I was moving on. That was a polite suggestion to drop the stick and find something better to do with your time. Yet, you decided that having the last word wasn't enough, so you came back with one more cheap shot. You claim to be upset because redoing those edits created a lot of work for you to redo them. I might expect that concern from a newbie, who is unaware how easy it is to revert. Had you contacted me, I would have reverted in seconds. You didn't. Oddly, despite acting like a newbie, one of your complaints is that I didn't treat you with the respect you deserved. Fair or not, I actually do respond differently to experienced editors, and double check when an experienced editor triggers the CopyPatrol tool. The difference is, I do that when I see an editor with 30K or so edits. While you haven't reached that threshold, I am gobsmacked that you are both unaware of the need to use edit summaries to indicate when you are bringing in text from other places, and that you are unaware of how easy it is to revert edits. That's newbie thinking. I am aware there is a lot to Wikipedia, and I don't expect every editor to be familiar with all the rules, but I don’t think I've ever met an experienced editor, other than you, who doesn't know how easy it is to revert edits. The CopyPatrol tool does get a lot of false positives, because it simply searched to see if a recent edit contains text that can be found already published. It doesn't have the ability to search for licenses. As a consequence, we do review a lot of notices in CopyPatrol about potential violations that are closed with "No action needed" for a variety of reason, one of which is that the material in the edit is properly licensed. Many newbie editors don’t know they should include that type of information in an edit summary, but luckily, many do. Here's five examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 In each case, the editor included information in the edit summary to indicate the source of the material. I didn't have to reach out to any of these editors, as I could see that the source was properly licensed, so I simply accepted the edit. I didn't have to scour through reams of data by all the volunteers working CopyPatrol to find these example, these are all examples I handled in the past week. In summary: You made a mistake, by not including the fact that the source material was licensed. Not a big deal I made a mistake, missing the fact that the source page, despite having a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page, had a license for an article within the page Had you simply contacted me, I could have reverted in seconds Instead of contacting me, you decided to rant about how unfair it was that I didn’t contact you Instead of stopping the stick after ranting, and ignoring my polite explanation of what happened, you decided to double down with cheap shots. I don’t know you, so I don’t know whether you will actually read my response this time and apologize (the betting line is “no”). If you decide to respond with another cheap shot, I’ll simply archive this waste of time. As an administrator, I take seriously my responsibility to respond to questions, and I will respond to honest questions, but there’s far too much work to do to waste any more time on this unproductive exchange. BTW, did you notice the bright yellow box placed prominently at the top of my talk page? The one that says in bold ‘’Copyright issue?’’ That was written with you in mind. I do a lot of work at CopyPatrol, and know some editors will be surprised when they see their edits reverted, may not know to look at the edit summary explaining the action. I went on to note that I do occasionally make mistakes, for example: Source material that is properly licensed but I somehow failed to notice the license And went on to note: In any of these cases, politely let me know and I will remedy this situation as quickly as possible. (emphasis added) Any suggestions on how to make that notice more prominent?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Thanks for your thoughts. Before I start, when you revert me mid-editing I get upset; I'd rather you contact me first, for such a large edit. When you tell me how to spend my time I feel disrespected. I can manage my own time quite well, thank you. In future I'd be grateful if you could desist from telling me how to spend my time. I'm happy with your 30K edits criterion, sort of. (A) I feel it's too high. (B) If there is such a thing it ought to brought to attention of newbies, and set out somewhere in WP policy. I don't think the number of edits is that important. Never mind the width, so to speak, what about the quality. That's why things like Orichalcum stars don't mean anything to me. Maybe they would've when I was younger; not any more. Yes I came back. Not as a cheap shot (again you're trying to walk in my shoes; please desist) but as an honest expression of my feelings. I've been a nice guy for so long and have decided no more. It's incidents like these that disengage experienced editors. I'm talking about years of quality edits not a meaningless climb to get meaningless trophies. So you decided my "silly vendetta…wasn't worth the time." Bully for you. Never mind it was important to me, let's just shut it down and ignore this "silly" editor. Nice work by an admin. I know how easy it is to revert. I was looking for a way to do that. There was none. That's what pissed me off. Please do not make stereotypical assumptions about what I may or may not know about WP policies. I spend as little time as possible reading these in terms of the low signal to noise ratio. I spend most of what time I have on high signal to noise to activities. I know enough about copyvio. I knew there was no copyvio in adding so much of my own material. That's why I did it, thinking it would be easy enough for me to rectify if it was reverted. And it turned out that I couldn't revert it as if I was being treat as some know-nought newbie, after nine years. Yes, I made a mistake. And what happened? I was slapped down without even a how's your father. Was it easy to revert? No it wasn't. After 15,000 edits I can't be trusted. So much for a positive learning experience. I'm quite forthcoming in apologies. I have nothing to apologise for in terms of your shabby treatment of my edit. Revert me? Sure. If I re-reverted I'd explain why on the talk page. If I don't explain myself then revert me like you did. Just don't revert me as if I'm not to be trusted, after 15,000 edits, and give me no option other then redoing the things myself or going cap in hand to the person who reverted me, without due cause. I feel you have no idea of how much the unilateral way you handle these things turns off editors like me. I've seen far worse behaviour by other editors given an opportunity to account for their actions, before being sanctioned. Even in real-life, copy-violaters are given take-down notices. And what happens here? A smack down with no opportunity for the copy-violater to rectify their own misdemeanour. That's bullshit and a denial of procedural fairness. I don't give two hoots about your status as an admin. What I do appreciate, and expect, is civility, and leadership by example, especially from an admin, and due consideration. The yellow box note at the top of your page is quite prominent, thank you, and was the first thing I read. Unfortunately it does not deal with what I'm concerned about which is procedural fairness and civility. Have I been incivil you to you? I don't count a little bit of sauce in my language, these days, as being incivil. I have nothing against you as person. All of my annoyance is directed at your actions, and what I see as a lack of procedural fairness in WP procedures. Perhaps the best way forward is to formally request, on the copy patrol feedback page, a change in policy so that at least what happened to me doesn't happen to someone else. Sandbh (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mbaéré Bodingué National Park

Hi Sphilbrick - i am not completely new to wikipedia and i did not just copy&paste but also measurement with google maps and some more other research aswell! but you are right - i copied some of the text without rewriting it. i fixed that now, thanks for the hint. TheStorm (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@TheStorm: Thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 21:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

TheStorm, I fixed a reference for you. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

omg, its complicated, alright, thanks! :-) TheStorm (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

TheStorm, Just so you know, it was almost trivial, so if you want help, just ask. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Singapore Penal Code update

Hi there, I saw the message. Would anyone be able to tell me how to update the sections of the Penal Code without a copy from the AGC? Because some of the sections are clearly outdated. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, I'm at a loss. In the US, the specific wording of statutes is deemed to be pd, so there is no problem reproducing the text. I have only the tiniest sliver of a possibility—a recent US Supreme Court decision decided that Georgia’s official annotated code could not be copyrighted. This goes beyond the code itself, and covers annotations. You aren't interested in annotations, but I bring this case up because the annotations may well have copyright notices attached, so I wonder if the Supreme Court of Singapore might have ruled that the Penal Code is pd, despite the notice on the page. Another possibility is that it sometimes occurs that an organization slaps a copyright notice on the bottom of their pages, even when some of the content may actually be pd.

That option doesn't sound likely as their TOU state:

(3) The materials, including but not limited to Singapore’s legislation, text, compilations, graphics, images, software programs and all other kinds of works, located on this Website (the “ Contents ”) are protected by copyright, trademark and other forms of proprietary rights. All rights, title and interest in the Contents are owned by, licensed to or controlled by AGC.

I'm going to ping a couple copyright experts, in hopes that they might have a thought @Diannaa, Moneytrees, and MER-C: (This relates to this edit using material from this site with this test at the bottom of the page:

Copyright © 2020 Government of Singapore. All rights reserved.

Singapore Statutes Online is provided by the Legislation Division of the Singapore Attorney-General's Chambers.

Last updated on 4 May 2020) S Philbrick(Talk) 11:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything that indicated works of the Government of Singapore is in the public domain. Here is the copyright act.— Diannaa (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, Thanks for finding that. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, is there another way to update the PD without the text? Cause there are sections that are clearly outdated, which I have fixed. If the issue is about the copies, I will trim it. I will ping this to WikiProject SG. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, I understand the difficulty of discussing penal statutes without using the exact words. While it makes a lot of sense, in many articles, to insist that the editor generally write in their own words, the exact wording of statutes is important to discussing those statutes. That why I think it is so common for most countries to make the text of official documents free of copyright.

If our own article Copyright_of_official_texts is accurate, almost all countries declare that official texts are pd. I noticed that Singapore is a signatory to the Berne Convention, and I had hoped that Convention might encourage the pd status of official texts, but as the opening paragraph of Copyright_of_official_texts indicates, The Berne Convention " left to the discretion of each member country of the Berne Convention to determine the protection to be granted to such official texts in that country".

I did find a small exception for material intended for the disabled Singapore Copyright, but that's not remotely broad enough to help, and arguably hurts—why on earth would you design special legislation to carve out an exception for works intended for the disable if the source text is already pd.

I hope someone can come up with a better answer, but at present, I think we need to remove the copied text of the Statutes. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will request copyvio. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

DuVal County

Sorry to be slow. Expanded ref (redundantly, IMHO) to: Lynch, Dudley M. (January 1, 1976). The Duke of Duval: The Life and Times of George B. Parr. Waco: Texian Press. pp 8-10. ISBN 978-0-87244-044-9. LCCN 76-54438. Retrieved 2013-09-09. AndersW (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Anders.Warga, I'm guessing this relates to this edit

However, while references are necessary, they aren't sufficient to cure a copyright problem. The edit included text from this site, which is very likely to be subject to full copyright. While the page has no notice, all material created recently is automatically fully copyrighted, unless it is specifically licensed in a way that permits further use. I don't see such a license. If you are aware that the text is licensed, please share that information. Otherwise, you can use the site as source material, and reference it, but you should write the text in your own words (with rare exceptions for short quotes). S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Anders.Warga, Sorry, I missed that you identified the source as a book, not the website I listed, as an aside, that means the County of Duval appears to have copied the material verbatim form the book. I wonder if they obtained written permission. On the third page of the book, there is a clear copyright notice. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Sorry, Google books isn't showing me content, and I don't now have access to hard copy of Lynch book. It was likely an inter-library loan, and pandemic precautions here make that unavailable. Is there reason to believe some of History section was copied verbatim from Mr Lynch's book? (BTW, link above leads me not to Lynch's copyright page, but to image of p. 408 in a bibliography that cites Lynch's book.)

Confident Duval County site was unknown to me until you mentioned it. Might that text have originated in Wikipedia article? (My edits were in 2013..That page first appears in Wayback Machine empty in September 2015, with text in question in March 2016.)

Please stay safe and healthy, whereever you are. --AndersW (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio at Debnath

Hi, Sphilbrick. If this edit is a copyright violation (which it certainly reads like), would you please consider warning Morriscollege420? Copyright with its templates and searches is not my forte, and the user is edit warring to reinsert it. Bishonen | tålk 12:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

PS, I have posted a hand-knitted warning, but I don't know what-all formalities we're supposed to tell them about copyright. Bishonen | tålk 12:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, I chimed in. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Request for copy of recent John DePol edit

Hello, I recently edited and added some information to the John DePol page on Wikipedia. I am a graduate assistant in Special Collections at the University of Delaware, and we are using the department's finding aids to edit relevant Wiki pages. I understand why you reverted my edits to the wiki page because it was a copyright violation with the finding aid. We are in the process of obtaining a Creative Commons license, which will hopefully rectify this problem in the future.

In the meantime, I was wondering if you would be willing to send me a copy of my edits to the page? I don't have a copy elsewhere, and would like to retain one for my records. I will not edit the page further until we have updated the copyright information on the finding aid. Thank you. Artsohard (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Artsohard, (New edits to a talk page go at the bottom). Can you turn on your email? Go to preferences, first tab, near bottom, let me know if it isn't obvious. Then I can send it to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, sorry about that. I believe I have now updated my preferences, but let me know if you have any issues. Thank you very much. Artsohard (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Artsohard, It's not pretty, but sent. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick thank you! Artsohard (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pocketbikes

I recently expanded the Pocketbike page, and you reverted it to a redirect tag for Minibikes, citing copyright issues and providing a link to a definition that is both informal and inaccurate. Despite the visual attributed associated with Pocketbikes and minibikes, mechanically and purposefully they are significantly different, and the page should not be a redriect. Could you please further clarify your reason for making the page a redirect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastcalls (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lastcalls, I didn't "make it" a redirect. It was a redirect. You changed it, and it appears to me that you did so while including copyrighted material. Perhaps I made a mistake, but let's discuss. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lastcalls, I'll also note that I did not "cites an inaccurate definition of pocketbike" I identified what appeared to be the source of the text you added. Again, I may be wrong, but let's discuss. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologize and see what happened. The page you linked to lead with an inaccurate description, and I did not realize there was text below the ad on the page. I clearly see what the copyright issue is, and will correct it. In my defense, I didn't actually write the section on the new page that contained the copyright issue, I cut and pasted some bits from the minibike page I was cleaning up due to inaccuracies and clutter, and did not verify the content. This is also why I changed the pocketbike redirect, because directing to minibikes is not accurate. I will correct the copyright issue within the previous text and repost. Thank you bringing it to my attention.

Also, please give me a an hour to edit the Minibike page, as it appears the article you cited from the Pocketbike page was heavily plagiarized on the minibike page previous to my edits (explaining the incorrect and glutted situation there), and I will need to vet what information I left on that page for copyright issues.

Lastcalls Sounds good. You mentioned you were copying from another Wikipedia article For future use, would you note the best practices wording 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) 16:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I will do this in the future. This is the first time I've had the experience where moving information from one page to another that turns out to be copyrighted material, but this is a learning experience and I will take this information for the future. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastcalls (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edits Made on an Article

Hi Sphilbrick,

This is Infoman400. I just wanted to reach out to you concerning the fact that you recently undid all the work I did to help contribute to an article. Yes, I realize I might not be the best at putting researched information in my own words, but at the very least I cited my sources. I am simply trying to help get the article to B-class status. I am not a jerk who is trying to vandalize the wiki, I just want to help out a bit by improving what I can on one of the articles I found under level 2 vital articles. I am not mad, I'm just a bit sad that all the work I did in researching "human prehistory" has just been wasted just because I don't know how to paraphrase. Do you have any suggestions for how we can fix this issue while putting my contributions to the article back up?

Infoman400 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoman400, You could start by telling me which article you ar talking about. Yes, I can figure it out, but it would be easier if you tell me. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoman400, I found it. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoman400, Here is the ithenticate report:

https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/0425?lang=en_us&o=58400022

This is not a close call.

No one called you a vandal, not even remotely, not even a hint. But you did copy material which is not licensed in a way that can be used. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Renaissance Workshop Company

At the end, everything about the Renaissance Workshop Company has been removed in favour of the Early Music Shop in Saltaire. As usual.

Fortunately, the truth will keep being the truth independently what is stated in the wikipedia.

Kind regards 81.34.79.85 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)