User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 129

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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded TheresNoTime
removed TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Query about Netanel Hershtik article and its deletion

Hi Sphilbrick,

I was looking up information about Cantor Netanel Hershtik today, and thought it would be interesting to see what information about him is listed here on WP. I was surprised to find out that he had an article, but that it was deleted (back in 2016, no less). I see that the parentheses notes "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". I cannot see any information beyond that, as I am not an administrator, but I am interested to know if there is some way to bring this article back (or if, perhaps, someone is already working on a new draft version, and if I could look at that). It would be a shame for an informative article on a world-renowned cantor to be hidden from everyone because its original editor refused to remove a copyrighted photo or something like that (I am making an assumption as to what the infringing piece of content might have been, and, also, that there was enough information about Hershtik at the time the article was originally published, but my point is that it would be nice to see an article about him up in mainspace).

Thanks in advance, GreenEli (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume you have seen Naftali Hershtik.
I took a glance at the deleted article. It did have a photo in it which was deleted from Commons via a Commons discussion, in which I did not participate:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:NetanelHershtik PR (2).jpg
Curiously that deletion took place this month, even though the article was deleted back in 2016.
I do a lot of work in the copyright area and cannot speak for anyone, but I can tell you that I have never deleted an article because it contained a copyrighted photo. While that was the case in this circumstance I did not even look at the photo. I have seen many situations in which there was concern about a photo, but my practice (which I suspect is followed by others) is to address the copyright status at Commons and separately deal with any copyright issues the text within Wikipedia.
In this particular case, there was concern about overlap of text between the article and this site. Unfortunately the page seems unavailable.
I don't feel comfortable providing to you text that was clearly a copyright issue. You haven't lost that much, the text only 250 words, it read like a standard bio presumably written by the Hampton synagogue. I hope you have success reconstructing an article. You might have success reaching out to the Hampton synagogue — while the specific text is not available there contact us information is shown and they may be able to provide some information which will help you. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Sphilbrick,
I know about his father as well, yes. But it was something that I was watching on the Hampton Synagogue's YouTube channel that piqued my interest in looking up Netanel here. I've got another article I'm working on editing at the moment, but this one does seem like something that I'd like to dive into to start fresh.
Thank you for your quick reply, GreenEli (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting copyrighted revisions

Hello Sphilbrick, could you assist me in deleting these copyrighted visions on GIFT City? The same user re-added the content to the page. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)  Done (saw this article by way of CopyPatrol). DanCherek (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, I'm curious to know why you deleted my work on draft:silly mountain (wildlife paragraph), I didn't do copy and paste and I also put the right reference to the website I used to get informations, I'm creating a page for an University project and I'm stuck due to your changes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team5DTRiccardo (talk • contribs) 12:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your edits match Word for Word with text from this site. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Médecins Sans Frontières

I made a copyright revdel request because the diffs I included contained verbatim text in the URL. I see that edits made after my revdel request were revdelled but the revision ids I included were not. Did I make a mistake in how I did the request (apart from missing the URL the first time)? I don't have much experience doing this. My original intention was to try and find a citation for the content but then I found that the text I removed included verbatim text of a news article. [1][2][3]

I also want to note that the user making good faith edits has a userpage that mentions that this is a shared use account. I don't know if this technically violates the username policy because the username itself doesn't imply shared use but isn't it still against policy to share accounts? Should I just ask them to stop sharing their account? Do something else? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think what you did is fine AFAICT. The confusion arises because the same editor added some copyrighted text from the BBC shortly after your reversion and request for Revdel. That edit triggered a report at CopyPatrol. (Curiously, the edit you are dressed did not trigger such a report.) I addressed the report I saw, which is possible to do without actually looking at the current version of the article (this may surprise you). Because I did not look at the current version of the article, I did not see your request for revdel. I just checked out your report and it looks valid so I have carried out the revdel.
Regarding your observation that it appears to be a shared account, you're correct this is not permitted. However, while I used to be very active in Wikipedia I'm on a semi-hiatus, and currently doing not much more than dealing narrowly with copyright issues. I suspect we have some canned wording regarding sharing of accounts but is this is an area that I've never had much experience in, I can't point you to the wording. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that maybe it didn't recognize it because they used the footnote parameter in the infobox that time? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't really follow that, but don't worry about clarifying unless there's something that needs addressing. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Tastes Great, Less Filling copyright error

Hi! I recently created Draft:Tastes Great, Less Filling based on content currently in Miller Lite that I was working to edit to make into its own article. It got deleted for claimed copyright infringement based on material allegedly copied from [4]. I think this was an error. It looks like "nutrition wiki" is actually just copied from Wikipedia's article on Miller Lite, including some of the footnote markers. At the bottom of the page, "nutrition wiki" also says "source of article: Wikipedia" and links to the Miller Lite page on Wikipedia. In other words, "nutrition wiki" is a copy of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Is it possible to restore my draft? I had worked on it quite extensively. Thank you! Chickenimpossible (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week at a tool called CopyPatrol. I wish that tool would identify if the potential problematic phrase could be found in an existing Wikipedia article (and I've asked that the tool be modified to do so to no avail) but it does not. This means that some reports are false positives, and may be pointing to text that is in a site which itself copies from Wikipedia. That's what happened in this case. While the site did note the source as required, it did drop the © at the bottom of the page without noting in the footer that the bulk of the content was from Wikipedia. I don't have control over their practices no do you. However, it is one fact of life that makes investigating potential copyright issues more complicated.
However, there should be no need to check into that circumstance. Creating a new page or materially adding to an existing page reusing content from Wikipedia is acceptable as long as it follows certain rules.
As outlined in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, "Copying and translating information from a Wikimedia project other than the English Wikipedia is usually possible, since all Wikimedia projects use the same or compatible licensing for most of their content. The edit summary must provide either a link to the original source or a list of all contributors." It also goes on to suggest a best practice — using wording as follows
copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution
I am very aware that even some editors with years and tens of thousands of edits are unaware of this guideline, so I'm not going to follow you, as a relatively new editor, for not being aware of this guideline. However, the guideline is not merely a bureaucratic suggestion. It serves at least two purposes. The first is that all contributions to Wikipedia by volunteers require a release:
"...you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
That's what makes it acceptable for you to reuse the edits of others, but to respect the rights of the original editors, attribution is required. You did not provide attribution.
The second reason for providing attribution in the edit summary is that it makes the job of volunteers who do copyright patrol a lot easier. My practice, and I suspect the practice of other volunteers, is to always look at the edit summary when evaluating an edit. There are multiple situations where the edit summary will make an otherwise problematic edit turn out to be acceptable. One of those situations is when the edit summary notes the material has been copied from an existing Wikipedia article.
That acknowledgment should be done in the edit summary associated with the original addition of the material, but the linked guideline covers how to take care of the situation if you copy material and accidentally fail to add the attribution in the same edit. In short, you can make a null edit to include the attribution information in a subsequent edit.
Let me know when you've read the guideline, and if you commit to adding the attribution after the fact, I will restore the article. (My restoration does not carry with it any presumption that the article is otherwise acceptable.) S Philbrick(Talk) 18:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

100 Year Starship reversion over copyright question

Hello S Philbrick,


On 17 December, 2022, I submitted updates and clarifications in the 100YSS article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Year_Starship drawing on the original government document sources archived at web.archive.org and other public sources. It appears your citation patrol may have incorrectly identified a mashup of the two. You (or it) reverted all of my edits with only one remark: "Reverted good faith edits by PoddieFries (talk): Copyright issue re https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2011/06/15/100-year-starship-study-call-for-papers/". In fact the original material is from the DARPA archived website "https://web.archive.org/web/20111108081454/http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2011/2011/06/15_DARPA_Encourages_Individuals_and_Organizations_to_Look_to_the_Stars.aspx" which by definition - if I understand correctly - as a government website press release, cannot be copyrighted. Centauri Dreams website copied the material in question directly from the DARPA press release.

To the best of my ability, my edits were backed by public source citations external to Wikipedia to clarify the context, background and events of 100YSS. Without my edits and clarifications, the 100YSS article seems to misrepresent the history of the DARPA study and the government's involvement and intent.

Did you perchance have time to take a look and read the edits and the original DARPA source documents and articles pointing to them?

Hope you will take time to relook at my inputs and the source documents and reconsider your massive undo. PoddieFries (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am running out for the morning in minutes, will look at this when I return. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I reversed my removal. Thanks for conversing so politely, sorry I did not pick up on the DARPA issue. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you S Philbrick for taking time to relook at the 100YSS article. I cannot even fathom the workload for editors like you, and I really appreciate your reconsideration and reenabling my edits. PoddieFries (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy New Year, Sphilbrick!

Happy New Year!

Sphilbrick,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Happy New year to you as well. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition to the "Direct Simulation Monte Carlo" article

Hello,

If you'll recall the description of the algorithm in the "Direct Simulation Monte Carlo" article was deleted because it was too close to the original description found in my textbook, Numerical methods for Physics. I've rewritten the description in my Sandbox but before inserting it into the article I wanted to check with you as to the best way to proceed. Please advise. And Happy New Year.

Alejandro Luis Garcia (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, looks good. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Alejandro Luis Garcia (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to dispute your reversion of my updates for entry on The American Artists Professional League

Your edit cites a copyright issue with https://aaplinc.org/board - The people shown on the page submitted their own images & bios, I wrote the text on the rest of the page. Also, the old official url americanartistsprofessionalleague.org is now our admin site and aaplinc.org is our current official site. If there are questions about the validity of my entry please talk to me or email AAPL.shows@gmail.com I will update the page on 1 Feb if I don't hear from you or you don't revert to my previous edits. Thanks - Jodie AAPL Director (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to be supportive of a new editor, but there are so many issues here, it is hard to know where to start.
As a brand-new editor, you are unaware of conventions which make it easier to discuss issues. For example, is standard practice when discussing someone else's edit to leave a link to the editing question or at least to the article. I handle hundreds of copyright issues, and in a small percentage of cases, an editor has an issue. Typically those are brought up immediately and I can look at my recent edits to see what is being discussed. This particular edit was three months ago. That doesn't mean I'm not going to respond but it means I had to do some searching to track down what you are talking about.
User name Your username suggest an official connection to American Artists Professional League. That means you have a conflict of interest. You are not prohibited from contributing but you shouldn't not in general be directly contributing to American Artists Professional League. There are ways to contribute which are discussed in more detail at WP:COI
You may well be officially connected to American Artists Professional League, but while we allow a lot of leeway when it comes to usernames so the fact that your username suggest a connection does not mean we can simply take your word for it that you are associated with the organization. There's no particular need for you to jump to the hoops to prove this — people with an official connection don't have special rights allowing contributions – on the contrary, there are significant restrictions.
The website does not appear to have an acceptable license for use of the material. Unless it is explicitly licensed, or falls under certain exceptions which do not apply here, all the material is deemed to be fully subject to copyright and cannot simply be used as material in the Wikipedia page. Furthermore, assuming you are correct that the material is written by the subjects themselves, It doesn't qualify as a reliable source so should not be used even if permission is arranged.
I understand you might be surprised that text you wrote but that page cannot simply be used by you in a Wikipedia article. Believe it or not, that's the case. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Wikipedia articles need to be written by independent editors using published reliable sources. The material at that site fails for multiple reasons.
Sorry this is coming across as disparaging but you can't do what you are trying to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
While I apologize for the time you've spent schooling this novice editor your assumptions are incorrect.
- I am a volunteer with the AAPL, a non-profit arts organization. I am not a staff member or paid by the AAPL in any way. According to WP:COI I am in compliance and should not be considered COI.
- The wiki entry I wrote is purely historical information expanding on the extant entry. This is consistent with the encyclopedia aspect of wikipedia. There has never been a published history of the AAPL, therefore, no citations. Articles have to originate somewhere sometimes.
- The historical information in the article was scavenged from old brochures and oral history; former board members. Anecdotal, sure, but reliable.
- There is no promotion of the organization in the article
- This is the only edit I have ever made to a wiki entry so I chose a name reflecting this - my bad.
- The current board members were not mentioned in the article. The official url, aaplinc.org, contains a page with the board members. (My name is listed on that page - we are all volunteers)
- Way back when the original entry was created the official url was americanartistsprofessionalleague.org - Two years ago that url was switched to admin use only and the official url became AAPLinc.org - so now that you've reverted to the old entry the official url listed is just wrong. I would like to correct this at the very least.
- I was not notified of the article reversion, otherwise I would have contacted you at the time. I just happened to look today.
What would be the correct way to update the article given there are no published reliable sources?
Thank you for your help
- Jodie AAPL Director (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
You were notified, see User_talk:AAPL_Director S Philbrick(Talk) 01:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
You did your part but the system didn't notify me. That's the issue you reply to? It would be nice to get a response about the content of my article. Editors should be helpful. I'm not interested in an argument. AAPL Director (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I realize you are new and don't know how this place works but you were notified. I don't know whether you were under the impression that someone was going to reach out and contact you, but that's not the standard process. Every single editor as a talk page, which is the location that communications to you are placed. Articles also have talked pages which is the place to discuss the editing of the article. A notification about the concern with your conflict of interest was placed on your user talk page. When you are logged in, is also an indication along the top right corner indicating that you have a notice. I just reread the COI guideline and note that it places a lot of emphasis on paid editing. This is understandable, as the paid aspect of COI editing is viewed as especially problematic, however I get the impression you think if you are being paid that means it isn't a COI issue. It absolutely is.
> It would be nice to get a response about the content of my article. I think you've received more than one response about the content. I explained in the edit summary that it was removed because it was a copyright violation. I do recognize that brand-new editors are not familiar with the fact that they need to read edit summaries, as that is a very important source of information. I also posted on my talk page information about the copyright problem. If you mean you want feedback on the content itself other than the observation that it's a copyright problem I don't quite understand why. It cannot be use so what's the point in discussing whatever aspects you wish to discuss? There are hundreds of thousands of edits every week, many of which get reverted. Those reversions ought to and are explained but it appears you have an expectation that an editor should go into some detail about some aspect of the content other than the fact that it's reverted because it's unacceptable. Not only that, you didn't ask any questions you were simply expected that we would figure out you wanted to know something that I still don't understand. We have forums to discuss such issues. I urge you to visit Wikipedia:Teahouse where experienced editors answers questions.
That's a forum where experienced editors help new editors with basic questions
> Editors should be helpful.
Editors are extremely helpful, but few are mindreaders so if you have a question, you should try posing it. I have personally responded to thousands maybe even tens of thousands of queries, but I'm semi retired now in limiting my Wikipedia time to mostly reverting copyright issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

  • New collections:
    • British Newspaper Archive
    • Findmypast
    • University of Michigan Press
    • ACLS
    • Duke University Press
  • 1Lib1Ref 2023
  • Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name,
    married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname)

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_129&oldid=1158452633"