User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 87

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

#1Lib1Ref
User Group update
Global branches update
Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting Content on Chatham Area Transit Page

Hello,

I am the Communications Coordinator for Chatham Area Transit in Savannah, Georgia. The Marketing Department is trying to update the Chatham Area Transit page with our current information, which is consistent with our website, www.catchacat.org. All information being added to the Chatham Area Transit wikipedia page is information we are allowing. Please stop "editing" our content out, do to fear of copyright. If you have concerns about this please contact us in the manner which is easiest for you. Contact information for CAT can be found at http://www.catchacat.org/contact/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 912cat (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@912cat: It isn't the case that we have a "fear" of copyright it is the case that we respect copyright.

You should not be editing the article because of your conflict of interest. See wp:coi.

It isn't enough to simply state that you are "allowing" use of materials, they must be explicitly licensed by the copyright holder. Please see the following page for more information:

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

I don't recommend that option as text created by the subject is rarely neutral. It is far better for a neutral editor to review the material created by your organization and adding it with appropriate references written in their own words. You are also encouraged to make suggestions for corrections or improvement on the article talk page.

We also have a relatively new way to bring the request for edits to the attention of a broader range of editors: Wikipedia:Simple COI request--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that any further discussion is best located on your talk page.User_talk:912cat#February_2018.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Confectionery copyright claim

Hi Splitbrick, On the Confectionery page you have just reverted my new section on storage, citing copyright problems and a private website. However, if you look closely at that private website, you will see that the website owner has taken his content from Wikipedia, and acknowledges Wikipedia as follows:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar_candy additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.154.74 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I did miss that notice. In fact, I just (briefly) looked again and still don't see it. However that's unlikely to be important.

If the material you added was copied from that site, then it should be regarded as coming from an unreliable source. However, my guess is that you didn't copy it from that site but copied it from some article in Wikipedia. While this is acceptable, it must be done in a certain way to identify the source and preserve attribution rights. I will below some relevant material:

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I took the content from Sugar candy. Can you please revert, with the necessary attribution? I am not sure how to do it. 86.158.154.74 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is best if you re-add it, following what I just said above. Create an edit summary that says: copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution. (If I revert it, I have to take responsibility, which means checking it word for word. Your task is easier).S Philbrick (Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

(In addition, there is no way to do an edit summary after the fact, so it is best to add it again, rather than revert.)--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do, but first please explain how to get at my deleted text, it does not seem to be accessible any more. And "Undo" is also deactivated. 86.158.154.74 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm running out the door in two minutes but I must be missing something. The deleted text came from another article so it's easily accessible. If I'm missing something let me know but I won't be back for a few hours.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I undid the revdel.S Philbrick (Talk) 16:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The deleted text came largely from the Sugar candy article but I made stylistic changes to fit it seamlessly into the Confectionery article. And I am not sure what your comment "I undid the revdel" means. 86.158.154.74 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean by "undid the revdel". So I have now accessed and reinstated the new text, acknowledging the source article as you requested. No further action needed. Goodbye. 86.158.154.74 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm now home, but it appears it is all resolved. Sorry for the acronyms, but I was really running out the door.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Revision for Human_rights_in_Lebanon

You deleted my revision on a copyright issue, but Human Rights Watch has licensed their work for creative commons use:

"HRW publications are covered by the Creative Commons License allowing for limited use of HRW publications provided the work is properly credited to HRW, it is for non-commercial use and it is not used for derivative works. You do not need to request permission from HRW before using or sharing one of HRW's publications. Before copying or downloading any HRW publications, please carefully review our Creative Commons License by visiting this link. By downloading and sharing HRW publications, you agree to adhere to the terms presented in the Creative Commons License."

https://www.hrw.org/permissions#2

Please restore the edit, which also corrected multiple factual errors on the previous version.

Bmk2932 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bmk293: Both NC (noncommercial) and ND (no derivatives) attributes are not acceptable licenses.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bmk2932: Re-ping.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello I Need Your Help I Want Create a Article About Babak Rahnama He Is Famous Why This Opinion Is Blocked??? Please Open This Article Creation 2.191.16.144 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Experienced editors willing to help new editors hang out at the teahouse, where questions like this are answered: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong alternative account link

I noticed User:Sphilbrick#Alternative account has a wrong link. It could say Sphilbrick alt (talk · contribs) or User:Sphilbrick alt but not Sphilbrick alt. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Good catch. Fixed.S Philbrick (Talk) 18:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion of File:His Royal Highness Prince Kashemasri Supayok.jpg

Hi. File:His Royal Highness Prince Kashemasri Supayok.jpg was uploaded with a non-free tag, but this was most likely incorrect, and the image should be PD. Please consider restoring the deleted original version. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Paul 012:One of the frustrating aspects of copyright is that the various terms generally start with the date of first publication rather than the date of creation. Thus, while it is sometimes possible to put some bounds on the date of creation (for example, a photograph of a person now dead can be presumed to have been taken prior to the date of death), it is often difficult to determine the date of publication.

US laws Generally refer to date of publication (sound recordings are different, but that doesn't apply here). There is also a special provision for works created after 1 January 1978, but that also doesn't apply to this case.

However, the copyright laws of Thailand make reference to date of authorship.

For photographic works, audiovisual recordings, motion pictures, sound recordings, or broadcast works, the copyright term is 50 years from authorship, or 50 years from first publication if it was published within that period.

Unfortunately, it also references first publication and applies that "if it was published during that period". I haven't quite figured out what that means. I think I understand it in the context of employment or government contract but it seems to be used elsewhere as well.

I think it would be useful to get feedback from the copyright experts at the Commons village pump who do a lot more work with images and non-US images than I do. If someone there says it qualifies I'll be happy to revert the removal of the larger image and arrange for the image to be transferred to commons.S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the caution, but I doubt that much would be gained from asking on Commons. The fact is we don't have irrefutable evidence that the photo wasn't first published between 1945 (the latest for it to have entered the public domain before URAA restoration) and 1966 (beyond which it would have surely entered the public domain due to lack of publication under Thai law). But it is extremely highly unlikely that it was. Photos were a luxury then, and people, especially the royal family, didn't just leave them lying around in the attic for decades before deciding to publish them. To conclusively prove the date would require non-trivial effort in tracking down books and digging through archives, something which I'm not prepared to do. If you're uncomfortable with restoring, I'll just leave it for now. Thanks anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers: Deleted revision

Hi, I noticed that you deleted and hid a revision at Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers by another editor for a copyright violation. Surely, the contents, the objects of the Society from the 1844 rule book must by now be in the public domain? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Esowteric: It does seem likely that the original rules are now in public domain. However, the problem I see is that the text added exactly matches a site which asserts copyright. Obviously, while they can assert copyright over many aspects of that page if they happen to the original document then it would be fine to incorporate the original rules. I am uncomfortable allowing them given that they were reference to a copyrighted page and would prefer that there be a reference to something that is clearly in public domain. I'll ping one of our copyright experts for some guidance on how to handle this. @Diannaa: Do have some advice on how we should proceed?--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 20:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The website's "terms and conditions" page states that all material on the site is copyright, so normally we have to assume that this is true unless proven otherwise. However it's not possible for copyright to have been renewed to the present day on a document that age. This book demonstrates that the website has correctly quoted the original rules and they've not been paraphrased. So my opinion is that the material is PD in both its source country (the UK) and in the United States. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That link didn't work for me, but I assume it is a source demonstrating that the text is old enough to qualify as PD. I'll not object to it being replaced if the proper reference issued. (To clarify, I won't object on a copyright basis. There's a lot of PD material that ought not to be simply shoehorned into an article - that may or may not apply here, I haven't given it any thought.S Philbrick (Talk) 01:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Esowteric:I'm not sure what happened, but I can now see the text. IMO, while it is not paraphrased, it isn't identical to what was copied from this source, so I think it would be better if someone copied from the original. As my small contribution, here is a reference:

A. W. Filson, G. D. H. Cole (25 December 2015). British Working Class Movements: Select Documents, 1789-1875. Springer. pp. 428–429. ISBN 978-1-349-86219-1. --S Philbrick (Talk) 02:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you both. Esowteric+Talk 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bandlamudi Chinna Paul Restoration

Bandlamudi Chinna Paul was submitted on 29 October 2015 but after due review it got deleted. As I did not save any copy, would it be possible to view the page as submitted during that time. I need to rework on it and re-submit. Thanks.Meher Mansion (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Meher Mansion: See Draft:Bandlamudi_Chinna_Paul Please make an offline copy.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC). Thanks, will rework on it.Meher Mansion (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Zelenodolsk Plant

Zelenodolsk Plant is based on a work of the US federal government (Department of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration). Do not delete it. Thanks,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Underlying lk: Good point, I reverted.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Wow! Hard to believe it has been that long. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Magical ping

Browsing through open tickets and noticed this one was open. Pinging you to see if it can be closed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@日本穣: Unfortunately no. I need to address it, and have tried a couple times, but without success.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheriff - History Information

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriff

The content in this article is a thorough history of the subject matter and ought to be incorporated in an encyclopedia that refers to itself as "sharing information". You deleted that most important historic information under the umbrella of copyright. I leave it up to you to complete your wiki-article. You, now, know what is missing and where to find it. You are the expert. You, easily, could have handled the matter differently and in the interest of the readers completed the historic information that is an enrichment for any reader. http://ncsheriffs.org/about/history-of-the-sheriff Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostlanguages (talk • contribs) 13:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lostlanguages:"Sharing information" is a goal, but it does not trump copyright. You could have handled it differently–adding the information in your own words. You chose not to. Someday, perhaps some editor will make the effort to include the information properly. That editor won't be me as I do not have the knowledge or the interest in the subject. Might it be you? You are obviously new to this project, and haven't yet learned that this project respects copyright. I hope you stay and contribute, and learn how this place works.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed states and territories of India

Hi, With reference to: Reverted good faith edits by Kongugirl (talk): Copyright issue re http://www.coimbatoredetectives.com/about-coimbatore-detectives.php. (TW)

Why was the edited article 'Kongu Nadu' under 'Tamil Nadu' in the Wikipedia page "Proposed states and territories of India" reverted? How does the edited content infringe copyrights when the sources are cited for added content? Kindly explain regarding this, if I any of my actions are wrong. Thank you.

Kongugirl (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kongugirl: It is not enough to provide citations to material that is subject to full copyright (Or any licensing short of acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Word for word copying is not permitted (with the exception of short passages in quotation marks or block quotes and even then only when editorially appropriate). You can't even lightly paraphrase the words as that is still a violation of copyright. Material should be written in your own words, ideally relying on multiple sources.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ottine

Hope all is well. Just wanted to ask why you edited my last post about Ottine,TX? TxBuiltSolutions (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@TxBuiltSolutions: If you look at my edit summary you'll see the answer. If you are not yet familiar with edit summaries are copy it here for you:

(Reverted good faith edits by TxBuiltSolutions (talk): Copyright issue re https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hno21.

See also the answer in the post immediately above.

FYI, new entries on a talk page go at the bottom.S Philbrick (Talk) 02:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

reverted BUITEMS land information

Dear Sphilbrick,

The information on the BUITEMS wiki page has been reverted due to copyright issues. since, I am an employee of the institute and I have been assigned the job to update the page by taking the relevant information from our website, please undo the changes as I have the only reference of the official buitems website for that information.

@Rabia Qadar: Sorry, but this doesn't solve the problem — if anything it makes it worse. As an employee, you have a conflict of interest and probably should not be directly editing the article. You should read:

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

The existence of the assignment means this is paid editing you must also comply with:

Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure

To cure the copyright problem, the copyright holder must provide an acceptable license for the text. More information can be found at:

Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials

However, I don't recommend the step, as it is unusual that text created by an organization would comply with our requirements for neutral wording.

Sorry to be the deliverer of bad news, but it is quite common that organizations think of Wikipedia as another social media platform and that is certainly not the case.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

FirstVoices Updating Issues

Hi There Just trying to figure out what the issues are with the updates and why they are being removed? Can you be more specific. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstpeoplescc (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@/Firstpeoplescc:I believe the edit summary identified the material that was subject to copyright, and thus could not simply be copied to the article. Sorry for this brief response, I am running to a board meeting. I can respond in more detail if you still have questions.S Philbrick (Talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Attukal pongala

Dear Sphilbrick,

I think I have rectified the issue of copyright. Please review the article again and if you are satisfied, remove the notice of deletion. Sanu N (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Sanu N: It has been deleted, but I glanced at the edits you made after the nomination, and they looked like minor wordsmithing, which still results in Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. That link should provide some advice.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The page has been re-created

@Sphilbrick:

I have re-created the page, but with a little information. I think other users may add to it. Admins may please review it.Sanu N (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your intro to wikipedia. Please help me contribute more and be an active part of wikipedia. Sreerampinnamaraju (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!S Philbrick (Talk) 23:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Rachael Worby page

Hey, understood about copyright violations but I was in the process of changing that to my own words. You reverted my edits as I was about to publish them two minutes ago. Nothing in exact words remained except for cited quotes and boilerplate text biography.

Can you give me a chance to publish the version I was going to before undoing all my work? I am new to this and unfamiliar with the process. It seems unfair to undo the work I did in the past two hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACast292 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess what I am really asking is how can I access and edit the previous version then? I need the previous version as my outline. I know how I was going to change the text (like I said I was two minutes from being done), but I don't want my work to be undone again. I can work offsite if needed but I need to access the full uninterrupted version - without it being in choppy blocks. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACast292 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@ACast292:It is not unusual for a relatively new editor to understand that we cannot permit copyright violations in current versions of articles but think it is acceptable to start with such material as long as one is going to quickly rewrite it. That is not the case. In fact, it is not even good practice to take a single source and rewrite in one's own words — it is far better to review multiple sources and then put something together in one's own words, but that process must be done off-line. Even if the editing is done within seconds, prior versions of the article are maintained by the very function of it being a wiki and we cannot permit copyright violations in any version. For this reason, when we find a copyright issue we not only remove it from the current version, but we do a process called in short revdel which stands for revision deletion, which removes the prior history from general view. It is our general practice to decline to provide access to the prior versions. I'm sorry that some work you've done has been lost but going forward, please make sure to do such editing and an off-line editor.S Philbrick (Talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the original version had a large amount of the same copyright violations that were found at fault with my original proposed changes. They happened to be uncited, so that must be why they escaped your notice. The only parts that were not copywritten were the lists. I am unclear on the short revdel since I was able to revert the version this morning, so I had access to this prior version even though it was marked as having a copyright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACast292 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not surprised. I'm using a relatively new tool (created in the last year or two) called CopyPatrol. It looks at new edits. For technical reasons, it's much easier to monitor copyright issues and a brand-new edit than it is for older content. I occasionally work on something called CCI which involves older edits but those are extremely difficult to work on.

I hope you will work off-line on a new version of that article that doesn't impinge on copyright. If you are successful, I hope you'll let me know and I will look into revision deletion of the older versionc so that they are no longer visible.S Philbrick (Talk) 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)