User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 121

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

NPS issues

(copied/transfered from User talk:Spicy)

I declined your RD1 request at Draft:J. O. Frye House and reverted your removal. I'll be happy to reinstate if I'm incorrect. However, as noted at:

Disclaimer

"Thus, material created by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is generally considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law."

It's my opinion that it's poor form to simply copy and paste large chunks from the NPS site. Use of selected excerpts, properly identified as quotes does make sense. In either case, proper attribution is required which doesn't exist in the draft.

I think the draft has a lot of problems but copyright violation is not the issue, Unless you think I missed something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thanks for following up. I did see the copyright information on the NPS site, but my thinking was that the nomination statement was not written by a NPS employee, and therefore wouldn't be in the public domain. It's my understanding that the nomination statements are usually written by private individuals - see National Register of Historic Places#Nomination process. I'm not entirely sure I'm correct on this, however so I would appreciate your insight. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Spicy, You make an interesting point; that's part of the reason I didn't write as if I was absolutely certain about it. While I've done a fair bit of work with NRHP pages, others have more expertise. @Doncram: in particular, has done as much or more than anyone. He typically includes excerpts from the write up but not the whole write up, and I think has been involved in discussions about how much can be used. I hope he will weigh in. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, received ping, happy to help. I don't see a link above or in the Draft:J. O. Frye House article to any document in question, but I suppose it is the following (which I found by other searching, which is what I would put in as reference in that article enclosed by <ref> and </ref>):
Charles F. Pritchard; Allen T. Denison (November 27, 1984). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Frye, J. O., House / Fariss House". National Park Service. Retrieved February 13, 2021. With accompanying two photos from 1984. The authors names and date of preparation appear in its Section 11. It was written by Charles F. Pritchard and Allen T. Denison, and there is no indication those are Federal employees, it is almost certain they are not, and it is NOT in the public domain.
Before finding that, I already presumed what is in question is a National Register of Historic Places "Registration" or "Inventory-Nomination" document that is published on the NPS website. These are almost always NOT in the public domain, with the exception being rare documents of that type (including a number in the earliest years of the NRHP and National Historic Landmarks programs) which can be shown to have beeen written by Federal employees. The majority are written by private parties, sometimes working for owners of properties, or by local or state government staff. All of those are NOT in the public domain. Please note the quote above is about "material created by the NPS", which could include works written by NPS employees, but these documents are usually not that. The "Disclaimer" linked above goes on to state clearly:

Not all information or content on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. Some content is protected by third party rights, such as copyright, trademark, rights of publicity, privacy, and contractual restrictions.

So, I gather that text Draft:J. O. Frye House is copied from there. As currently presented, the words appear to a reader to be written in Wikipedia's collective voice, because the wording is not in quotes and credited to the actual authors, so that constitutes plagiarism (giving less credit than is due to original authors for their ideas and/or wording). It also constitutes copyright violation, because the text's copyright is owned by those authors unless they have assigned authorship over to some other entity.
Maybe that's all that's needed here, but let me add more context: It is not at all the worst kind of commercial copyright violation; it is conceivable that the authors and even local and state government officials might themselves believe it is in the public domain, they might have thought they were putting it into the public domain (I recall that happening apparently with State of Maryland officials, regarding a series of webpages they created about NRHP-listed places in the state). It is unlikely Wikipedia would be sued and have to pay damages or anything for the copyright violation. But Wikipedia cannot accept either the plagiarism or the copyright violation. In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer but I am informed about copyright violation law cases up to the U.S. Supreme Court I think, the NRHP document text is sort of close to public... and longish quotes from it (credited properly) are more okay than longish quotes from other sources would be. It is highly appropriate for Wikipedia editors to quote from NRHP documents in presenting why the NRHP document authors felt the places were significant and worthy of NRHP recognition. Also it is appropriate to quote any weird/strange assertions which might not be true, to provide some distancing (e.g. state "the NRHP author asserted 'this is the first 2-story house ever built in the state' but there exist several earlier ones X and Y and Z"). Also it is appropriate to quote really well-written wording that should be celebrated. Regular, plainly presented material in an NRHP document should be summarized in your own words. Easiest/best to do by process of looking what document says (and not copy-pasting it) but rather looking away and writing from scratch... you will find you can then put it in your own words. Copy-pasting then editing somewhat usually does not get past the sin of what is called "too close paraphrasing" (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing).
Currently the draft article shows no sources at all, so it is pretty much a joke to be considering it for publication in mainspace, setting aside the plagiarism and copyvio.
Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Spicy, Well, it's pretty clear writing the right editor. I felt it wasn't working as an article but I initially, and mistakenly thought that the property write ups became the property of the federal government and therefore public domain (I think it's even conceivable that the ownership rights and copyrights can reside in different people — I once bought an original cartoon with the intention of reusing it and found that I owned the piece of paper with the character that I did not only copyright). I will reinstate the RD1.
Thanks DonCram S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, User:Sphilbrick. Some further context: part of the problem is that the National Park Service sees merit in requiring applicants for NRHP listing to provide release for the NPS to post the documents in the NPS webpages. But unlike Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, the NPS does not particularly know or care about or want to put material into free software movement"-type free usage by others, by later potential re-users, even for commercial purposes. I have come to understand that copyright issues for Wikipedia and Commons are more about protecting "innocent" re-users who might trust that a Wikipedia-published text passage and/or a Commons-published photo can be used in their for-profit new book about "Things to do in My Town", only to find themselves sued, and their publication blocked, when it turns out some person in My Town who authored text or photos was violated by the inappropriate use of their material in Wikipedia. This can be devastating to an individual. While the Wikimedia Foundation is simply not going to be hurt at all, likely would not be sued at all because there is no clear way Wikimedia was profiting, and anyhow has massive funding to fight and extremely strong legal defenses that they tried their best to keep copyrighted material out of Wikipedia, etc. The NPS doesn't give a whit about what befalls some ignorant person who re-uses what the NPS publishes under their "okay just for NPS" permission. The NPS easily could ask NRHP applicants to release their text and photos under CC-BY-SA or other free-type license that would allow for re-use elsewhere, and most applicants would be perfectly fine with that, but that has not been done. --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Doncram, It might be that they don't care, but another distinct possibility is that they aren't aware that different licensing might make a difference. Presumably they are interested in educating the public about these important historical locations, and might understand that Wikipedia is formally likely to be a place where someone will find something. While they've done a lot of work putting together a decent website, members of the public might not be stumbling upon the NPS website and perusing it. Perhaps we could explain to them that if they are going to get property write ups and require some permission agreements, that it would not be hard to make sure those permission agreements are consistent with Wikipedia use. That would permit us to expand the discussion of various properties beyond the limited excerpts permissible under fair use. I would not think that we should simply be reproducing everything in the documentation, but it would be nice to know that we could use larger portions without running into copyright problems.
Any interest in working together? If you're willing to track down some senior person in the NPS universe, I'll be happy to put together a letter to that person explaining how a change in their licensing procedure would be mutually beneficial. I don't know whether it's something that can be done retroactively (potentially yes if the original copyright holders did sign over rights to NPS), but at least going forward.
Or vice versa. If you'd rather work on writing up appropriate letter, I'll see if I can track down the right contact person. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(Starting anew, on this Talk page)

Yeah, I think i have distilled and stated the copyright issues fairly well.

Actually, I did want to try to do what you suggest, and was planning to try to visit NPS persons/offices in person, quite a while back, when there seemed to be opportunity to do so probably with another one or two Wikipedia editors, with justification for getting appointments that we were in town and perhaps in the news, when the Wikimedia convention was held in Washington, D.C. .... back in, i dunno, 2015? 2012? This was one of two or three objectives I would have had. Another would have been about addressing numerous errors/issues in NPS / NRHP documents and web-provision thereof, towards setting up some process of cooperative fixing (see wp:NRIS info issues series of work pages for numerous specific issues. But certain persons had their way in ANI-type processes and got me banned at the time from working on NRHP articles, out of what I perceived as bullying for the sake of being jerks (and since then borne out by their actions / non-actions, IMO, but whatever) and it undermined what stature or whatever ability as a WikiProject NRHP representative type I could have used with NPS, and sapped my will, and I didn't pursue it. I also didn't really want to tell those persons what they were successful in destroying; now it is pretty long ago and several of them are gone.

So I'd be willing now, given your interest, to cooperate on some of this or something new with NPS and/or National Archives (see wp:NRHPHELPNARA). In a new political administration that would likely to be favorable to actual productive plans regarding Americans preserving/appreciating their history, etc., rather than denying it and the constitution and basic principles of American democracy and all that.

Another matter, not sure how to handle, is that the fact of copyright remaining on documents at NPS (now many at National Archives) is sort of convenient, in a way, in negotiating with arriving editors. If all the docs were actually in the public domain or similar, I would still not want to see stupid-level copy-pasting plus posting of a stupid template like "some of this may have been copied from PD sources" as was long done with wp:SHIPS usage of cut-and-pasted DANFS (or DANFSS?) PD material, rather than selective quoting and summarizing as in usage of any copyright-protected sources. Other editors from the past at least would feel more horrified if copy-pasting started up in a big way. It is sort of convenient to just say "Stop, no way can you do that because it is copyvio". So getting rid of copyright issues on text is not all good. However, it sure would be good to have use of photos provided in NRHP applications. And anything which could be negotiated with NPS could only apply to terms for NRHP applications in the future, could not be retroactive due to past authors' rights. And maybe/probably my concern this way could be managed.

How would you like to proceed? Perhaps we should call/Zoom to discuss? Gotta run now. --Doncram (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes, quite interested in making high-level approaches to NPS, towards addressing these things. What I would hope to achieve would perhaps be like the top-level cooperation offered by UNESCO (? manages World Heritage Sites program) and/or related organization on lower-level historic sites world-wide. We were approached but bungled opportunity, back at same 2014 or so timeframe. I would hope that statesman-esque User:Smallbones could be willing to participate, at least to strategize. I would think planning out stuff, and then reaching the United States Secretary of the Interior (who is Scott de la Vega currently in acting role) or similar, to start, might be appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Doncram, I've got family visiting today, can pop in a bit but not a good day to set up a zoom meeting. But that would be a good way to start. Let me sort out my family commitments and come back with a proposed time and date. You identified a few issues I sort of knew about but agree are relevant. I was at the Wikiconference in DC- hosted partially by the National Archives - see photo at bottom of my user page. I wish I had realized you were there, so we could have met. I was pleasantly surprised at how receptive the National Archives were to Wikipedia, so it may be worth mentioning that. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I have only ever been to an area-level wiki-conference in NYC (interesting, fun, when unreferenced Biographies issue was blowing up). Smallbones kindly reached out, inviting me to attend the D.C. wikiconference in 2014(?), but I did not. If that is when National Archives was there, then, yeah, i regret it all the more. I did have some experience trying to work with low-ish level NPS, about the data accuracy and document availability type issues... it needs to be opened at a much higher level. "Data validation" or some such term is a big academic issue area that government/research librarians (e.g. with PhDs and/or other academic-type credentials/training) would appreciate... what is possible includes a whole big ongoing process involving volunteers, with Wikipedia medium and culture and editors possibly working really well with government. Quick browsing there is something called Smithsonian Digital Volunteers, there are other big serious projects. We bring a whole lot to the table, can ask a lot; they likewise. Higher wikimedia interest/participation possible in a project done right. Email later. --Doncram (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I was quite surprised to see the word "statesman" in the same sentence with my username. Doncram knows the issues very well. I recall making what I thought were very strong counter-arguments to the gist of his statement about a dozen years ago. It is a shame that documents submitted to the NRHP (in order to receive a benefit - the listing) and part of the public record are considered copyrighted, but I lost that argument and have been so used to dealing with that limitation since that I've pretty much forgotten about it. I really think the main problem is overly strict Wikipedia rules (in this case) and interpretations, as well as the change in copyright laws since the NRHP program began. I can't see who benefits from copyrighting these documents. I've met "copyright holders" who didn't know that they were copyright holders. I doubt that anything can be done about the past, but going forward should be easier. Maybe an act of Congress would be needed, but still easier!. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

103.230.149.163

Can user:103.230.149.163 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 14:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, wow, hard to believe! S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

help

Recently my Draft Sheikh Dawood has beed deleted due to copyright. can i create that again. currently when i going to that draft its showing it has been deleted due to (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people)) TheRedReaper (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

TheRedReaper, Feel free to recreate, but don't violate copyright. Write the text in your own words. Sounds like there are other issues as well. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. i got the point of copyrght issue but this article is about a islamic saint who died in 1700 A.H. how can it be a promotional article. TheRedReaper (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

TheRedReaper, I haven't looked but it can easily be promotional. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Have a nice day, from the UK! EGL1234 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!

"Appeal to Reason (band)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Appeal to Reason (band). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Appeal to Reason (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Remember that time a few weeks ago you fixed an accidental page move to the wrong target? Yeah, who's gonna use this? xD dannymusiceditor oops 21:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor, sorry, I don't remember. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nina Reeves

hello, why was the page that I created deleted? The character has been on the show for a long time now, I believe she deserves to have her own page.--Princessruby (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Princessruby,
The article I deleted had no content. I think you need to chat with @Livelikemusic: S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It had no content? Nah, I would rather chat with the admin or you or someone else, who would be able to assist and not the person you have mentioned --Princessruby (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Princessruby, That's up to you, but the article title showed up in the admin dashboard in the housekeeping section, which is a section for routine deletions. I looked at it, and it had no content so I deleted it. If you like to chat with someone who might know more about it, I gave you a link. My responsibility as an admin is to explain my actions which I have done. I think but I'm not sure that the content was removed by the person I identified. it seems to me you'd be better off talking to the person who removed the content but if you'd rather chat with me go ahead. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I truly appreciate your honesty. I think I am more comfortable with you, so I got another question to ask, when you say it had no content, what exactly do you mean by that? correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't a fictional character who has been on the show for a while now, have its own page? --Princessruby (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    Princessruby, That's not the right question. When I say the article had no content, I didn't mean that the content was limited or uninteresting or anything like that I mean it literally had no content. Someone else removed it. It came to me as an uncontroversial deletion because it was an article that was empty. We automatically delete empty articles. Someone else removed the content and you need to talk to that person. They think you took their content and that's a discussion for you to work out with them. Maybe they're right, maybe you're right, but it's a discussion for the two of you to have.
    To reiterate – I didn't remove it because I assessed that a fictional character didn't deserve an article, I deleted it because it literally had no text. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I got your point now, thank you.--Princessruby (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:DJ Sackmann

I came here to ask; why did you delete that draft? It was G13 REFUNDed on the 21st, but then you G13'd it again on the 22nd. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

JJPMaster, The edit history says they last edit prior to the nomination for deletion was in 2016. While I do see that it was restored that doesn't show up in the edit history and I'm not sure why. I restored it and you make an edit to it so that it doesn't get removed again? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Café Voltaire and Place de l'Odeon

Hi. I'm expanding Café Voltaire and Place de l'Odeon. I followed template's advice to "provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation" - but thought I should let you know here in case they're flagged. Thank you. (Have also let User:Diannaa know.) -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoricalAccountings, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding revdel at Ramgarhia

Sir, I believe a few more revisions need deletion, that were copypasted and can be navigated to (article history). I've added a revdel tag again here. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC) :Fylindfotberserk, There is absolutely no reason to be angry. If you were a brand-new editor, you might be worried that your work would be lost, but that's a good reason to be a little concerned, not angry. You been an editor for four years, and while you still have fewer edits than many regulars, surely you've been around long enough to understand how a wiki works — specifically that almost anything done can be undone with a couple clicks.

If you read the notice on the top of my talk page, which was written with you in mind, you'd know that I occasionally make mistakes, but when those mistakes occur I happily and quickly correct them.
It looks to me like your edit use material from this site. you think that assumption is flawed, let me know. If you agree that you did use material from that site think it's properly licensed full use let me know. If you think there's some other reason my removal was an era let me know. If you are right it's trivial to restore your edits. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
?, Sir are you sure this post is directed towards me? Means I'm not getting it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh.., I've taken the liberty of removing the revdel tag since you have deleted those revisions [1]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I almost always remove that when I'm done but I got caught up dealing with the misguided editor in the post above.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I get it. Thanks . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
  • A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
  • A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
  • There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Article: World Square

Hi User:Sphilbrick I believe you have reverted my edits due to copyright however it has not all been copyrighted and I did spend hours on that article and it's not fair that my time was wasted due to copyright. Please make my edits on World Square in my userspace draft and explain to me where I went wrong as I will fix it all up and not make it copyrighted. Please do as I am currently angry about it. - User:BugMenn (talk)

@BugMenn: There is absolutely no reason to be angry. If you were a brand-new editor, you might be worried that your work would be lost, but that's a good reason to be a little concerned, not angry. You been an editor for four years, and while you still have fewer edits than many regulars, surely you've been around long enough to understand how a wiki works — specifically that almost anything done can be undone with a couple clicks.
If you read the notice on the top of my talk page, which was written with you in mind, you'd know that I occasionally make mistakes, but when those mistakes occur I happily and quickly correct them.
It looks to me like your edit used material from this site. you think that assumption is flawed, let me know. If you agree that you did use material from that site think it's properly licensed for our use let me know. If you think there's some other reason my removal was in error let me know. If you are right, it's trivial to restore your edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@BugMenn: I'd like to add two observations. First, your signature is malformed. I tried to figure out what's wrong with that but I did not figure it out. If you visit the WP:teahouse, someone will be happy to help you. fixing it is more than just a matter of cosmetics, when you have a properly formed signature, it is easy to reply to you but when it is not properly formed, it is much more work. Second, I see a lot of messages on your talk page but no evidence that you've ever seen any of them. I urge you to review the messages on your talk page. Many are years old and can be ignored but it's the proper place to have conversations about issues.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: thanks for the tips but could you please revert back to my latest edit but remove the copyright content as it was not intended to be there. The unintentional copyright is just the Future section of World Square using the article this site. --User:BugMenn(talk) 17:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
BugMenn, When a copyright problem is identified as part of a sequence of edits, a process called rollback is use which undoes all consecutive edits. I did apply revision deletion to those edits, per policy. that does, as you may have noticed, undoes edits that are otherwise acceptable. I've temporarily remove the revision deletion so that you can recover any edits that are acceptable and redo them. Once that is done, I will restore the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Thanks for reverting back the revision deletion. I have readded the information but removed the Future section where I accidentally did a copyright mistake. -- User:BugMenn(talk) 21:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
BugMenn, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

History of African Americans in Philadelphia

Hello. I noticed you reverted the new info I was in the middle of adding to History of African Americans in Philadelphia that was sourced from this site for copyright violation. If you read the text I think you will find that I have changed the language substantially so as to avoid copyright vio. If there are particular areas where you feel the language still adheres too closely to the original, please let me know. I am continuing to edit as I find and add new info. This article badly needs expansion. Thank you. ABF992 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

ABF992, I did notice it wasn't word for word that I thought it was to close a qualified as Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Let me see if I can track down a comparison report. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
ABF992, Let's see if this works. Can you go to
this page
Click on the ithenticate report?
If you can see it, you will see that the text isn't exactly the same but it's closer than I think is acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I'll work on it and resubmit. ABF992 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
ABF992, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_121&oldid=1025543707"