User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 102

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REVERSION of Natalia Sokol bio page

1) why did you delete all 22 previous editing of the page without any explanation? 2) you also mentioned "Copyright issue re http://stefanvandrake.blogspot.com/2011/12/voina-group-bios-of-key-players.html (TW)" without any checking. Stefan van Drake has no relation to Voina and Natalia Sokol. His blog is simply copying the info from the original Voina web-site: https://en.free-voina.org/about. His article was published Dec, 2011 and original from Dec 2010! I ask you immediately to bring back the editing from May 17 2019 23:00 and explain your motivation pls. — User talk:Kozkino

1) I did provide an explanation. You quoted it. 2)It's a copyright violation, even if I didn't get the original source. Not permitted.—S Philbrick(Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- on Stefan's page he wrote: "I reprint this with Voina´s permission". The link to original publication on Voina website in this case is enough. You could simply ask to add the link but not to destroy all the work which is nothing for you probably. You deleted the piece of art history just because you want to. You're not doing the wiki better and more informative, your behavior looks to me like the behavior of an eraser and ordinary user.
- ask you again to return my editings to full it with links. — User talk:Kozkino 18 May 2019 13:31
I urge you to read:
Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others
I do see that the permission statement on Stefan van Drakes page. That constitutes permission for him to use the material, not for anyone else.
I now see that there are two problems. The first is the copyright problem. As explained in the link I just provided, material at Free Voina Is subject to full copyright and cannot be used without arranging for permission. The easiest way to do that is to have the copyright holder posted acceptable Creative Commons license on the site. However, even if that happens, the second problem is that the source is highly unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. Before going to the effort of trying to arrange for an acceptable license you might stop in at RSN to see if it qualifies as a reliable source. If it doesn't, that's not much point in trying to arrange for licensing.
As an aside, is it your belief that casting aspersions on my behavior is the best way to accomplish something?—S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
First, I do not casting aspersions on your behavior, but point out that with deleting the information instead of requsting to indicate the source you are depriving the article of information content.
Second, I am a journalist and bibliographer, and therefore I'm always carefully and correctly approach the information from the net. Especially when I'm working with biograhy of famous persons.
In addition to Sokol biography, which you deleted by referring to copyright, you also canceled the following edits in the page, which were confirmed by other media resources:
- 2016 Sokol participated in the Dada festival in Zurich, where she was invited by the Cabaret Voltaire, source -- WATSON
- Correction that the second child of person lives for the eight year without documents. it's obvious if she was born in 2012
- Sokol and her children are currently in a jail in the Austrian city of Graz, source -- RT, Radio Svoboda
- correction of the link to the EKO Cobra Wiki page
- correction of the link to the Moscow State University Wiki page
- correction of the link to the Criminal Code of Russia Wiki page
- information on conditions of Sokol's detention and arrest, with the court document as a source
I Kindly ask you to motivate the cancelling of the mentioned changes — User talk:Kozkino 01:29, 19 May 2019
When a copyright violation is identified, the edit to remove the violation is called a rollback. That unwinds all consecutive edits by the same editor, and sometimes this means that otherwise acceptable edits are also swept up in the rollback. However, throwback is done to remove the copyright violation. In practice, sometimes the other edits are additional copyright violations which need to be removed, sometimes edits to the copyrighted material which need to be removed, and sometimes unrelated which do not need to be removed, but teasing out exactly what should be removed and what should not is an unreasonable burden given the hundreds of reports each day so we undo all of them. You are welcome to redo any edit that is not a copyright violation.
Could you please sign your edits? It is harder to respond when you do not sign and I will cease responding to you if you refuse to sign your edits.—S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
That is not true, because the information about:
- Sokol and her children are currently in a jail in the Austrian city of Graz, source — RT, Radio Svoboda
- information on conditions of Sokol's detention and arrest, with the court document as a source
was added at April 5, 2019 (check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natalia_Sokol&action=history)
and biography with as you said "copyright violation" only May 17.
Why did you delete all information which was cited from reputable media before May 17, 2019? — User talk:Kozkino 21:01, 19 May 2019

::sigh:: I can see that you tried, but you did not sign your post correctly. In case you think this is nitpicky, when you sign properly, I can simply click on a "reply" link, and it not only sets up the indentation, it sends a message to you. When you do not, I have to manually reply, which is a pain. See Wikipedia:SignaturesS Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Why did you delete all information which was cited from reputable media before May 17, 2019? I have already explained this. See Wikipedia:Rollback S Philbrick(Talk) 19:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Arguably, given your combative attitude, your repeated false accusations, and your inexplicable refusal to sign your posts, I should simply stand on the long-standing practice that we remove copyright issues with rollback, which sometimes also undoes otherwise acceptable edits. However, despite your inability to assume good faith, I have taking the extra step of undoing the revision deletion, checking to see if the edits leading up to the copyright violation were otherwise acceptable, and then removing only the copyright violation and subsequent edits. That's not our usual practice and I would normally be much more accommodating to someone who at least tried to assume good faith but I've done it anyway. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Done

I have made the suggested addition to the list --Natsubee (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Natsubee, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125


Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red:

Virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

331dot (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

331dot, Got it (thanks) and responded. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you and request

Thank you for fixing the copyright violation on Talmadge Memorial Bridge.

Could you recover Examination of Apollo Moon photographs for my reference, and put it in my user space? Thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Bubba73, I'[ll try, but can you be more specific? I'm not sure what I'm looking for. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Never mind - I just found out that I could go back in the article's history and get it. Thanks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Bubba73, OK good. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit in SRVV6 entry

Hello Sphilbrick - I was in the midst of making edits and when I refreshed the page I was working on a few minutes later, all of the edits were gone and it was reverted to a previous version. If there is a problem or concern and I am happy to change or take something out but I would very much appreciate at least access to the previous version so that I do not lose all of my work. Thank you very much for your guidance. SRVVR6 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

SRVVR6, Your edit was mostly made up of a copy and paste from this site. I realize you are very new but are you not aware that we do not permit copyright violations? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick - I appreciate your response. There are multiple biographies and press releases that are similar and I was in the midst of adding and including additional information and citations. I would like to make additional edits so that there is no overlap that would run up against the policy. The part about teaching and lectures are not in that article at all. I believe the part you may be concerned about was about to be separated out completely and linked to - I was simply in the middle of it and hit publish instead of 'save.' Is there anyway to view my post so that I don't have to completely redo the citations? SRVVR6 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edits regarding the Beckham Law article

Hello Sphilbrick,

Regarding, your edit to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beckham_law&oldid=897232812

You mention copyright issues, but we actually have the right to use and mention the article. We are a firm of English speaking solicitors and tax advisors in the South of Spain. Please let me know what type of proof you need for this

This may surprise you, but it's not particularly relevant what rights you personally have with respect to that article. You have to comply with our copyright policy.
Our copyright policy prohibits the direct use of material under full copyright, with the usual exceptions that material properly referenced and set off with quote marks or in block quotes can be used with some limitations on the amount used. Larger selections are permitted if the source material has an acceptable license. I looked, but did not find an explicit copyright statement the source page. In the absence of an explicit license, we operate on the assumption that the material is subject to full copyright. Is there such a license? If so, can you point it out to me?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, I'm not fully understanding the relationship between you and the owners of that website, but on the chance that you have a conflict of interest, please make sure to read and comply with the requirements of Wikipedia:Copyrights. The opening paragraphs talk about using material in Wikipedia — you may wish to jump down to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others
It will be great if we find out that the material can be used, but we take copyright very seriously and like to make sure that the rights of others are respected.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick If you have a look at the article, you can read "*Copyright statement: Information contained in this article is considered public and may be distributed, mentioned or copied."
I looked on the "home" page, the "about us" page, the "contact" page, and the "legal terms and conditions" page and I did not find that statement. Then I looked at the "Privacy Policy" page and I found this:

LEGAL AND TAX ADVISORS S.L.P. is the owner of this domain and has published this website to provide potential visitors with access to information about its solutions and services. The information displayed on the website is made freely available to users who access the website individually and without charge. The commercialisation of the right of access is expressly prohibited.

It is expressly forbidden to copy or reproduce all or part of the information published on any electronic media (web pages, databases or electronic publications) that allows the re-distribution of any information published on this website to multiple users without the prior written consent of the owner.

The phrase you quoted is probably not acceptable but the two paragraphs above are definitely not compatible with Wikipedia licensing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick As I said before, I have express consent from the owner to copy this specific content. If you need, I can get a written letter. We are a team of solicitors and tax advisors who work under LEGAL AND TAX ADVISORS S.L.P and would like to make (not only one, but) several contributions to Wikipedia, since we believe there is a lack of information in this field.
No, I do not want a written letter. (By the way, if you sign your posts, you will get an automatic notification when I respond to your posts.) There is a process for donating material so that it can be used. More details can be found here Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The foundation of Wikipedia is the idea that it aggregates everything that's been said about a topic in credible, independent sources. This is sometimes referred to as "summarizing the total body of literature." You might have better luck if you wrote original content for Wikipedia where each sentence is cited to an independent news article written by a journalist that supports the factual assertions of the sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A few edits/tweaks

Hi Sphilbrick. Wondering if you had a minute or two to take a look at these. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

CorporateM, Today is not an option, I have a board meeting in a couple hours, and still preparing. Perhaps tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 20:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Thank you for your highlight on Samuelle Dimairho article, i checked the website and then rewrote the section in my own words, i hope you can check it out so that we can improve the page. I also think the article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. Kindly have another look and am hopping we can improve the page. Thank you so much. (Hurungudo (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC))

Whoops, wrong diff

Thanks for revdeling the copyvio in Ethiopian cuisine. Unfortunately, my diff count was off by one, so there's this. I'm sorry for the extra work. Diff numbers remain a mystery to me. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

BlackcurrantTea, Don't feel bad, you aren't the only one. I do a fair number of the RD one requests, and some requests omit diffs some even omit the source material. I discount off by one is fairly common, although it's more likely to involve the first diff rather than the last. I usually double check, but there were 19 requests in the hopper today, so I may have moved a little too quickly. I appreciate that you double checked. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
BlackcurrantTea, Oh, and I'll also add that you may or may not have gotten your diff count wrong. My usual process is to use the initial diff account from the template, but figure out the last diff count myself which is normally easy. It's very possible I made the error not you. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

updation of contents of Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin

requested edits perhaps

--Ncshyla (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Dear Sir, I would like to update the authentic information about Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin - 29. The available information seems to be revised or updated.

  • Year of establishment needs to be changed from 1954 to 1957*
  • Updated postal index number:682029
  • Updated director name: Dr. C.N. Ravishankar
  • Updated research centre number three and deleted Burla Research Centre (since it is closed in 2012)
  • Nabl revision updated - in annual report it is clerical error. I will attach the nabl accreditation certificate and iso certificate for evidence.
File:Nabl.pdf
nabl revision
File:Iso.pdf
iso revision

Institute photo

  • Vision

To facilitate sustainable harvesting and total utilization of fishery resources through innovations in harvest and post harvest technology.

  • Mission

Ensure responsible harvesting of fishery resources through eco friendly, energy efficient and economical means; ensure total utilization of the harvested fish through appropriate processing, value addition, packaging and waste utilisation; ensure food safety and nutritional security to the consumer and minimise carbon and water footprint per unit volume; and to ensure equitable benefits to the stakeholders, across the value chain.

  • Quality Policy

CIFT is committed to continually improve its processes to fulfill stakeholder expectations, with a view to promote responsible and sustainable harvest and post-harvest technologies in fisheries sector by conducting basic, strategic and applied research, and undertaking consultancy, training, testing and technology transfer.

Mandate

1. Basic and strategic research in fishing and processing, bioactive compounds & food safety 2. Design and develop energy efficient fishing systems for responsible fishing and sustainable management 3. Development of implements and machinery for fishing and fish processing 4. Human resource development through training, education and extension

Objectives

1. Basic and strategic research in fishing and processing. 2. Design and develop energy efficient fishing systems for responsible fishing and sustainable management 3. Development of implements and machinery for fishing and fish processing. 4. Human resource Development through training, education and extension.

Kindly update this information. The intention of updation is to update the contents of Central Institute of Fisheries Technology and not to harm, hurt or underestimate anybody.

@Ncshyla: I'm guessing there's some sort of misunderstanding. I posted a welcome message on your page but my talk page is not the place to propose edits. You probably want this Talk:Central_Institute_of_Fisheries_Technology--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

St Mary of the Angels, Bayswater

Please clarify your recent reversion. The material in question is from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. The edit was so indicated with the PD notice and the CE template indicating that it was also in wikisource. Whatever "catholicity" is, (which I did not use), it clearly copied from the CE, which it is my understanding is public domain and was attributed as such. Thank you. Manannan67 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, The copy patrol report cited this source, which clearly has a copyright notice at the bottom of page and does not state (as they should) that some of the material on the page may have a different copyright status. However, I did miss the PD notice, which identified that the material did come from a public domain source.
I self reverted, sorry for missing the PD notice. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

History of Ahmednagar

(@Diannaa: I pinged you for an opinion about this, but after learning new information, the question is moot, so you can skip this.) Hi, I've been cleaning up History of Ahmednagar and thus far all but one paragraph has been lifted from this source published in 1976. My edit summaries give the specific pages.

I'm getting bored because I know from the phrasing that the rest of the article comes from the same source. Can't we just blow it up as requiring a complete restart? The source is actually pretty useless because it has itself plagiarised other stuff and, believe me, that isn't a rabbit-hole you want to go down because it ends up in a real mess of stuff from the British Raj era when historians and ethnographers etc were, well, not actually historians or ethnographers etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sitush, Opinions differ.
I often run into situations where almost all of an article this is a copy paste from one or more sources. In some cases, the editor may have written a lead sentence and original prose, and other instances, the lead sentences are also copy paste or perhaps a close paraphrase.
It's my opinion that the best option in such cases is to blow it up completely, so that the article can be started over by an independent editor. Other editors take a different approach, either retaining the lead paragraph (if not infringing) or rewriting the lead paragraph, removing everything else and converting to a stub.
I'll also note you have removed the material that you identified as a copyright infringement, but if I understand correctly, you haven't thoroughly examined all the rest of the material. I'll note that the original editor (whom I believe contributed the bulk of the material) has been blocked multiple times with the most recent block an indefinite block. Although the block reasons did not mention copyright, I believe you've identified that the editor has substantial copyright issues. The reason I mention that is the following — when we block an editor for copyright and institute a CCI, we invert the usual AGF assumption. For an editor in good standing, if they add material in an edit, we assume that it is fine unless we find evidence that there is a problem such as copyright. In the case of an editor who has been blocked for copyright issues, we make the reverse assumption, and assume their contributions may well be copyright problems unless we can demonstrate otherwise. While this doesn't squarely fit the model of an editor block for copyright with a CCI, I think the same concept can apply and it should not be our burden to examine each and every sentence added by this editor in view of the fact that almost all the material you've identified has turned out to be a copyright problem. I think it's a reasonable conclusion to remove either everything, or perhaps retain a short sentence in the beginning and convert this to a stub.
I'd like to get input from our copyright expert who has dealt with many more of these situations @Diannaa:. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a creation of Coolgama (talk · contribs), whom I vaguely remember. I don't think stubbing it is going to work given the nature of the subject. Maybe blank, revdel and redirecting to the main article until someone can be bothered to rewrite from scratch would do it. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I missed the important point that the article subject is not Ahmednagar, but History of Ahmednagar. My thoughts about stopping were in the context of my assumption that this article was about the city as opposed to the history of the city. My concern was totally blowing away an article about a city but I see that's not the issue. I'm in support of your suggestion that this be converted to a redirect to the city. I'd like to give some time to see if Diannaa wants to weigh in but unless she objects I'll be happy to do it. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
No probs, happy to wait. It has been there for years anyway. However, just as a quick test, I took a look at this Coolgama creation and it took me no time at all to spot that

Bavdhan, nestled amidst three hills on its south, east and west and the scenic Pashan Lake in the north, has seen gradual growth in the form of planned development. It is strategically located on NDA Road, the centre of Aundh and Kothrud - both well-developed suburbs free from illegal development and encroachment.

comes from this news story of 2012. I'm afraid that while I do fix or report a fair amount of copyright stuff, it isn't something that particularly floats my boat. I understand the legal necessity but I'd rather be doing other things than spending all day, every day wading through CCIs. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
And a big chunk of this creation has been lifted from here. I am depressed. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I see that Diannaa isn't active today. My main reason for wanting her input, beyond the fact that she's a copyright expert, is that I think her views on stubbing are slightly different than mine and I wanted her perspective. However based on a more recent discussion that's a moot issue so I'm going to go ahead and blow it away as substantially a copyright violation, and replace with a redirect. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sitush,  Done. I don't want you to be depressed - you do too much:) S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, and I am cleaning up some of the incoming links. I'll live in hope that their errors were confined to their early days and not throughout their several years of editing. CCI is backlogged as always and I feel like I am adding to that, although my one attempt at adding a report to the list some time ago was a horrific experience in itself - complicated stuff. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have now cleaned up the Bavdhan and Central Water and Power Research Station articles mentioned above, again naming the original copy/paste sources in the edit summaries. Probably needs some revdel, like the History of Ahmednagar thing. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, I completed a revdel on both, thanks for researching, removing and letting me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No probs, and thanks for your help. You may want to peruse Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank, which is another of their creations that I have just cleaned up (lead and a long list). Although I know lists are not really copyrightable, I took the list out of there more because it was mostly trivia than because it was mostly word-for-word taken from the bank's website. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Sitush, lists can be tricky regarding copyright - I revdeled that list. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

COPYVIO at Anthem Lights

Hey, saw you hid the IP edit at Casting Crowns. Guy did the same thing at Anthem Lights if you can block that there too. Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
KB (rapper) as well now. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I’ve reported so hopefully this guy will stop. Toa Nidhiki05 16:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Darts

This sounds like they're adding a lot of of bull :) - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Rita Dickson

Hi Sphilbrick, I see there was a speedy deletion of the new article for Rita Dickson on 8 June 2019 for copyright infringement. Could it be reinstated please and moved to draft so it can be worked on such that it no longer infringes any copyright? Only it was created by one of our commonwealth scholars and we are keen they learn good habits and have a positive experience such that they are empowered to contribute to Wikipedia in the longer term (obviously abiding by its central tenets). Let me know what you think in any event. All best, Ewan aka Stinglehammer (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Stinglehammer, I'm sorry but that is not an option. Wikipedia does not permit copyright violations at any time which means it is not permissible to use copyrighted material in a draft or even in a user space sandbox, even if the intention is to quickly rewrite it. Due to the way the software works, all prior versions are accessible so we don't want to have copyrighted material remaining in the history.
I see that the editor, KWAME290495, Has an account but did not turn on the option to allow email contact. If that option is turned on (it's in user preferences), I can email a copy of the material to the editor. (Or to you). S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, thought that might be the case. Could you email me so we don't lose their work completely and can perhaps overhaul into something much more in our own words. Best, Stinglehammer (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Stinglehammer,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Odd

Not sure why your edit was removed--maybe one of those errors when there is an edit conflict? But you may not have noticed it got deleted. Grandpallama (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Grandpallama, I did miss that, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Grandpallama, Turns out it was inadvertent (and yes, due to an edit conflict), but I would have missed it, so thanks for letting me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I assumed it was inadvertent, since your contribution was pretty innocuous. Glad all is okay (at least with the edit!). Grandpallama (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_102&oldid=908200648"