User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 101

Archive 95

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

Marasuchus revert

Hello, I saw that you had reverted one of my recent edits, claiming that I had plagiarized an Encyclopedia Brittanica article. I agree that there is a portion of the description section which evidently copies that source, although it is cited. However, I should inform you that I did not add this information, it was added on March 31st, 2016 by a user named Paleocemoski. My edit was composed of original descriptions of anatomical features as well as some reformatting and citing. I did not remove the offending information because I did not know it was plagiarized. It seems that your reversion, though well-meaning, actually removed all of my (non-plagiarizing) material while retaining the plagiarized info. So the problem is not solved, and my work has been erased. I'm asking you to restore my version of the page, and I'll make sure to remove the plagiarized info that was present prior to my edit. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fanboyphilosopher, I ended the revision deletion and reverted my own edit. Please let me know when you are done so that I can do a revision deletion on the encyclopedia Britannica text. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance, I have removed or rewritten all of the plagiarized content. Let me know if I've missed anything. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fanboyphilosopher, Looks fine, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! New user could use some tips

Hi there! I'm a new user to Wiki and I just noticed you deleted my article for copyright. I'm guessing that was because I quoted some poetry. I had thought this would be alright if properly cited and marked as a quote, but if this is not the case I can easily take these bits out. I also used a number of other sources and wrote the rest of the article in my own words. Please advise on how I can fix the article to comply with copyright. I thought I had it right last time but I'm happy to change it! Always learning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquie.ra (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacquie.ra, This page: Wikipedia:Quotations

Should have some useful information.

You are on the right track to think that including in quotation marks and properly citing is critical, but that's not sufficient in the case of overly long quotes. the most common example is that editors want to include the lyrics of a song. In general, with the obvious exception of lyrics that are in the public domain or in rare cases lyrics that have been properly licensed, we revert the inclusion of lyrics in articles. The same principle applies to poetry.

It's my observation that are accepted length "rules" (not explicitly stated as far as I know but based upon practice) are more stringent than other publications allow. I commonly see newspapers and blogs excerpting hundred word or more passages, identifying them (hopefully) with block quotes and citations, but we generally want shorter passages.

The language on the page I quoted does not give firm rules it relies on statements such as "limited in extent".

This answer is insufficient I can check with another copyright expert who has more experience with quotation issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't find any firm rules on length of quotations either - which is why I assume longer ones would be alright. However, I should be able to make the same points using smaller (perhaps one line) citations from these poems. Would this satisfy copyright rules? Either way, I'm happy to take the quotations out entirely for now, since the rest of the article was in my own words, and I would love to reinstate those unrelated/uncontested edits. Jacquie.ra (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jacquie.ra

Yes, shorter excerpts (quoted or block quoted) with citations should be fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the page to include shorter block quotes. Let me know if there is still an issue and I'll be happy to change it again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquie.ra (talk • contribs) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, Thanks for the correction. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WNBA rosters

Hi. I wonder if you can weigh in on this proposal. Recent discussion started here. Thank you either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

International Martial Arts Federation

Hi,

Can you undo your reversion of the updated portions I created on this page? You also deleted some other pertinent information. I am the one of the administrators for IMAF and the page has not been updated for some time.

Thanks

My removal was due to the fact that the edits were copyright violations, so no I cannot undo them. (No, I did not miss that you are associated with IMAF.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please also read, and comply with the requirement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interestS Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you sign your posts see Wikipedia:Signatures, you will get a notification when I reply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning, in Lexington KY

Hi, if you might recall, there was a past draft article Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning (redlink), about which I have come across some more info, in beginning a new article on architect Herman L. Rowe. This was a draftspace article originally perhaps, or perhaps it was in mainspace. I suspect i was involved in an AFD about it? Maybe I was interested in there being a list of literacy centers? Or a Category:Literacy centers, I don't recall exactly. Anyhow it was deleted eventually by you, and there was User:Doncram/Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning also deleted eventually by you. I don't know why a userspace draft would have been deleted, actually, although I do understand it is okay and perhaps necessary that drafts in draftspace get deleted if they're not progressing, eventually.

I do think the building is likely notable as a Carnegie library and a work of Rowe, and it is in fact in continuing use as a literacy center. The building is mentioned in the Lexington Public Library article as it was the original public library in Lexington; I tend to think it would be useful as a separate article. Could you restore it again to my userspace, hopefully with its complete edit history intact, for me to look at it again, please? --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is this National Park Service page about the building, which mentions it is in NRHP-listed Gratz Park Historic District. So a separate article about the building would legitimately have a NRHP infobox for it being a contributing building. I really don't recall what the slant of the previous article was, or what sources I had found, but this is adding up to suffiency for an article. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, We are permitted to delete drafts when they go unedited for more than six months. That's what happened. I restored it. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring it. Hmm, i don't like the idea that drafts in my own userspace might be being deleted without me knowing about it. It can take me longer than that to get back to something. The draft was in fact a weird hodge-podge, including that I had found a photo of a different Carnegie library to add to the page. Now I think i can probably find a pic of the actual building, and add a lot more. I see i had created it "with copy-paste text from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Organizations. I had not figured out it was a contributing building in a historic district. Anyhow, again thanks. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, I have user space drafts that haven't been touched in years and hope (possibly naïvely) that I will get to someday. if someone deleted them might be less than happy myself. However, I'm not interested in tracking down why and how this one got deleted because asking for it to be restored is close to automatic so it isn't worth my time to think through a modification to our procedures. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood

The article is a Draft AfC and not yet submitted for review. The article is still under construction, please do consider not to be deleted, thanksWakowako (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wakowako, We don't permit copyright violations. Being under construction does not change this policy. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you!Wakowako (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright question on retrospectives change that was reverted

Which material do you mean? The text I added was taken from a blog post that I wrote. Do you need some kind of permission from me for publishing it on Wikipedia? BenLinders (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC) BenLinders (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi BenLinders. According to our copyright policy, text content on Wikipedia must be either officially released into the public domain or under a compatible free license (usually CC-BY-SA or GFDL). As the copyright holder, you can do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, specifically the section on donating text content that is already online. Usually the quickest way is to add a copyright release notice to your blog post. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Climate change task force

Hello Sphilbrick,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, Thanks for the notice. I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment but I will try to return to this in a few days. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesomeness

	Barnstar of Awesomeness
	I hereby award the Barnstar of Awesomeness to Sphilbrick, a hard working awesome editor! Cheers! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Coming from you, that means a lot!--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nostra aetate

I beg your pardon, but I think, in as much as I had already removed the offending sentences in my last edit, your complete reversion of everything was a tad overzealous, in that it also removed a citation, some minor re-phrasing, a number of wikilinks, and restored a transclusion to a non-existent page. However, I'll leave it be, as I'm not all that interested. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mannanan51, I realized, even as I clicked the rollback button that your removal didn't match your edition so there may be some issues. However, I needed to do a revision deletion of your copyright violation and it is common procedure to do a rollback before doing the revision deletion. If you'd like me to undo it so you can clean it up yourself let me know, but we cannot permit copyright violations even in history. Color me puzzled as you have tens of thousands of edit so I don't quite know what happened. Is it possible it wasn't a copyright violation and I missed something? S Philbrick(Talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

reversion edits for Har Dayal

Hi Sphilbrick! I think you have deleted single phrase reversions like reference book title correction like from Dalit to Hindu which is a clear cut mistake in title of book . Also I think edits about “Mr. Har Dayal’s confession of faith” expressing to get amnesty from British Goveronment have no copyright issue, these edits should be restored rather these have been found deleted in this reversion.Guglani (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Guglani, When a copyright problem is identified, it is practice to do a rollback, which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. That will, in some cases, undo some legitimate edits, but it is quite common that some of the edits other than those flagged involve edits to the copyrighted material. While, in principle, it would be possible to spend the time to tease out exactly what should be removed and retained, this would increase the workload, not by a little bit but by a significant amount. Regarding the "confession of faith" I looked the document and searched for any sign that there was an acceptable license but I didn't see one. What is your basis for concluding there is no copyright issue?

Regarding the otherwise acceptable edits — if you want, I can temporarily change the revision deletion status so you can get at them and redo those separately, then I can restore the revision deletion. Let me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

please go ahead , so that I can redo some edits .Guglani (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Guglani,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Guglani, Please let me know when you are done. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Northern Wei

You mentioned this Copyright issue re http://kontanjou.blogspot.com/2008/09/emperor-wu-of-liang.html without checking that this page in fact got the material from Wikipedia itself. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sgnpkd, The copyright tool as developed by Wikimedia does not check for matches to Wikipedia articles (despite my request).

This is often not an issue, as editors are permitted to copy material from other Wikipedia articles as long as they follow best practices as outlined here: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

I always look to see if the required notification in the edit summary exists. This happens several times every day and I mark those as acceptable and move on. As you know, you did not provide the required edit summary.

It's not too late; the link provides advice on how to do a dummy edit and add the attribution. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well noted for edit summary, thanks. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

How significant is significant?

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for doing the copyvio-revdels on the articles I reported recently. Unfortunately it seems like there are a lot more to come from that user, who has been adding several a day for the past half a year or so... I'm just wondering, in the copyvio-revdel template it says "because the page's history contains significant copyright violations of..." - how significant is significant? Am I wasting your time and mine by reporting only a couple of sentences of obvious copypastes or close paraphrases, like I just did in Mücver? It's clear to me from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing § Creative expression what sort of thing doesn't belong in an article. But if it's reverted or removed, is there some lower limit where it's not worth bothering about redacting it? --IamNotU (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU, Fair question, but I don't have a clear answer at the moment. I'll try to give it some thought and respond tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU, I've got too many irons in the fire and cannot give this the attention it deserves. I'm going to go for a partial copout and see if {{ping}Diannaa}} has any thoughts. I'm sure she has considerable experience in this area. I will share that I've mulled over requesting that the foundation provide some funding for what I would call a super revision and delete tool. The impetus for this request is precisely the issue that you identify. In summary, while it's no big deal to do a revision deletion if you catch the problem shortly after the edit (as now happens with Copy Patrol notifications), it's a different story if you find a copyright violation from some time ago as often happens in CCI. One positive aspect of the MediaWiki history is that it is possible to reconstruct any article at any point in time, but one negative aspect is that if problematic material needs to be removed, it is present in every intermediate edit. Doing a revision deletion of an old problem means that we have to hide every intermediate edit from the view of most editors, which is not a good thing. I've wondered if it would be possible to build a tool that reconstructs the editing history as if the problematic edit had never been made. That seems feasible in certain circumstances, but might be difficult or impossible if the problematic text itself was edited in the interim. One of the reasons I haven't pushed for this concept is that I fear I will be told that it's virtually impossible for most circumstances.

However, perhaps there are other approaches we should consider in my hope is that Diannaa might have some insights. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixing failed ping @Diannaa:--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Each edit to Wikipedia creates a unique webpage. They are sequentially numbered. To date there have been 897,535,385 edits and thus 897,535,385 webpages created. We don't actually think of each edit no matter how large or how small as creating a new unique webpage but that's what is actually happening. The article history lists those various versions and automatically creates a list of authors (such a list is required for attribution purposes under the terms of our license). So that's why the editing history is built the way it is. Long ago, admins used to delete a page that had copyright issues and then restore only the clean revisions. However, this method invariably removes some contributors from the list in the article history and therefore destroys/removes the required attribution. Regarding revision deletion, I typically perform it for any and all violations of the copyright policy no matter how large or how small, with few exceptions. I make exceptions on heavily edited hot-topic articles where editors find it extremely useful to know exactly who added what, because in addition to adding content, the participants will be monitoring one another for neutral POV, edit warring, etc. And occasionally I will not do revision deletion on a truly tiny violation (like say 2-3 words). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Sphilbrick and Diannaa! It sounds like a copyvio-revdel template should be added even if it's only one sentence, if it's a copypaste or an obvious close paraphrase. I guess I was hoping it wasn't necessary to bother unless it was a significant/substantial paragraph or two, because there have been literally hundreds of small additions, a sentence or two, from the user I mentioned above, and it takes a long time to try to figure out if those ones are copyright infringements or not. They've usually done a very light paraphrase of the shorter ones, changing enough to make Googling difficult but not enough to make them non-infringing. Other people seem to have just deleted them for being unsourced, as they always are. Maybe I'm being overly conscientious - it's going to take weeks if I have to try to track down originals for every one. I'll think about it some more, thanks again! --IamNotU (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 05:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

NIC Bank

Hello, Sphilbrick/Archive 101!

I've noticed that you reverted my changes on NIC Bank. Kindly note that I was:

1. Correcting the errors on the page. There is a difference between NIC Bank and NIC Bank Group. The former is a bank in Kenya and a wholly owned subsidiary of the latter.
2. Updating the details of the in its merger with another local based banking group and how it would affect the banking business.

All information give was cited from reputable newspapers in East Africa and from both banking groups. Kindly review the references and add information as opposed to reverting credible updates. Let's all improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Zotezangu (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Zotezangu, It wasn't obvious but perhaps I should've looked closer given your edit summary. I'll take your word for it. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.Zotezangu (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)