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) Template:Z152