User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 94

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.

The River (1984 film)

This article may need to be protected. I just reverted the copy-vio again and warned the anonymous user. I have a feeling he's not going to get the message. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It came across CP again. I was going to tag for RD1 as a vio of https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088007/ but there's too many for the template! So you may want to RD1 after taking care of the page and/or account. Thanks! Crow^Caw 17:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Crow:I had literally just finished doing an RD1 on that page. I just went back and did two more Am I still missing some?--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks! Crow^Caw 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Leo van de Pas

Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Leo van de Pas, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Removed the copyrighted material and tagged with revdel template. There are still other content to save. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: You haven't completed the removal of the copyrighted material. See: Earwig--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me —AE (talk • contributions) 14:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus:(I don't think it is done, but I don't have the energy to fight about the remaining sentence.) It is my opinion that when an initial creation of an article is mostly a copyright violation, it is better to remove it entirely and urge the editor to start over. An editor who doesn't understand copyright issues doesn't get to impose upon us the obligation to spend considerable time teasing out what needs to be removed and what can remain. I understand many editors disagree with this position, but when we have multi-week backlogs for reviews of drafts, a strain on resources of copyright reviewers, and a strain on OTRS agents trying to deal with hundreds of serious questions, it doesn't make sense to devote scarce resources to cleaning up someone who doesn't know what they're doing. If you choose to spend your time that way, more power to you, but I don't think it's a sensible use of my time. Let me know if you disagree.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You’re right. Sorry for disturbing you and wasting your time. We all work in different areas, and it’s all for Wikipedia’s good anyway. I’ll warn them then. —AE (talk • contributions) 15:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MV Logo - NEW.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MV Logo - NEW.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bacterial secretion system

Bacterial secretion system which I created yesterday was deleted

because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://colloidalfrere.blogspot.com/2015/04/secretion.html.

And this I think is a very hasty and imprudent decision. The said blogspot is, in all honesty, one that I have never ever seen, and I cannot even access it right now to know its content. If my article had been carefully read, it opens (the lead section, rather lengthy one) entirely and genuinely with my own words. In fact the rest of the text, i.e. Type I secretion, etc. came from the page Secretion. If mine is a copyright infringement, that page should also be immediately deleted. In fact, my plan is to present an exhaustive article on bacterial secretion system with new scientific information which are not covered in "Secretion" and sub-articles, and rewrite my page entirely. It is disappointing also that I am not given even a chance to justify (contest the nomination by visiting the page is already dead). I have so far worked diligently in improving medicine and biology information through Wikipedia. This action is a bit discouraging. Therefore, I request you to restore the page, and I shall do the rest. Chhandama (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chhandama:It wasn't hasty, much less very hasty, and it wasn't imprudent. It may have been a false positive, which can be easily addressed.

If you look at my very recent discussion User_talk:Diannaa#Copyright_and_new_page_Patrol, I'm talking about the challenges of this very situation. I'll excerpt the relevant paragraph:

For example, one of the false positives that bedevils me is copying within Wikipedia. If they follow the protocol as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, I know I'll catch it, and we could tell them that if they follow that protocol, some human will be along to accept it, and they can ignore the message. If, however, they copied within Wikipedia and did not note that in the edit summary, they still have a chance to fix it with a dummy edit and that might occur before we get around to reviewing it which would be a net positive.

You are not a brand-new editor, you've been around for over 11 years. That doesn't mean you're expected to know everything, it has become painfully aware that many longtime editors are unfamiliar with our guideline covering copying within Wikipedia, but it would've hoped someone with your experience would know by now that the AGF response is to politely ask what happened rather than starting out with bad-faith assumptions.

I have to run out to a doctor's appointment so I don't have time to do the dummy edit to provide the proper attribution so I'm asking you to do it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for restoring the page.Chhandama (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: MH ANI discussion

I believe the need for the hour is de-escalation. That is everyone walk-away for a few days and give MH enough time/room to request and be granted return to their regular editing. If instead we force the community to decide between "overturning the current block" or CBANing the user, I'm afraid the latter option is (unfortunately) likely to be chosen. Similarly, if MH is immediately unblocked, their conduct is likely to lead to further escalation till a stick-ier block becomes unavoidable.

So my advice to those who wish the user well, would be to (1) counsel MH offline if possible, (2) let the issue lie for say a week or two to see if everyone regains some perspective. Just my 2c. Abecedare (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: You missed the substance of my request which apparently I didn't express clearly enough. We have a block of one of the most prolific editors in Wikipedia history and after spending over an hour looking at links provided by people, I have no idea why the block was made or what led to the block. I don't think it's an unreasonable request.--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean 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) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Saint Anselm College.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Saint Anselm College.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been wondering for some time...

invisible non-breaking spaces discussion

...what causes the appearance of & nbsp; in edits such as this one [1]. I see it here and there, seemingly randomly, from certain editors. Is it some editing tool certain people are using that inserts these? It's not a big problem per se, but it makes me worry that this tool (or whatever it is) might be making other, more objectionable, changes sometimes. Any ideas what's going on? E Eng 15:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: WP:WIKEDNBSP. --Izno (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There izno one as fast as you! So the mystery is replaced by a puzzle. Question 2: Where are these nbsp's coming from in the first place? E Eng 15:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: Apparently the combination for a non-breaking space on a Mac is fairly easy to bump--it looks to me like there are a few combinations there which are pretty easy to insert accidentally. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Stupid Macs. OK, that explains it. E Eng 15:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Color me puzzled. I did scroll up thread somewhere so that I could copy and Paste *'''Strong Keep''' but then I just typed my small comment and signed it. I don't recall touching the several other paragraphs that purportedly have an edit made by me. I'm not using a Mac.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Right; Wiked converts already-existing invisible non-breaking spaces to be explicit, which is broadly a good behavior, I think. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If I understand the link provided by Izno, I'm an innocent bystander :) and it may have been the prior edit by David Tornheim who introduced an invisible nonbreaking space, and when I made my edit my additions were included but WikEd converted the invisible nonbreaking space to the HTML reference. Perhaps David will confess to owning a Mac.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know where the non-breaking space characters came from. The sequence & nbsp ; is one of my least favorite codes introduced by HMTL. I have rarely used it, and I did not deliberately add any non-breakign spaces on the page in question. The & nbsp ; code was definitely added here as noted above. Probably from Sphilbrick's use of WikiEd?

Two possible explanations: (1) I use the long-held convention to have two spaces after a period. Increasingly I hear that convention has been changed because of word processing (e.g. Sentence_spacing). I haven't, and I'm not alone [2]. It appears science might be on my side. [3] [4] (2) At one point, I copied the entirety of the Wiki text (with the two spaces after the period) from the Wiki text editor into Word to save it for back up, and then copied it back. It is possible that Word saw the two spaces and thought using the standard ASCII for two spaces (Code 32 if I remember) was not good enough, and then converted one into a nonbreaking space. Unlike the far superior word processor WordPerfect which has reveal codes, it's hard to know just what encoding Word is ever using. I would have copied the text into Notepad instead, but Notepad doesn't do line wrap. Maybe I should use WordPad for my drafts. Working directly with text is definitely not as easy as it used to be when I used Emacs. I believe Wikid77 (or maybe another editor here, possibly Mjpants) suggested a superior text editor that has better version control for my Wikipedia drafts. I'm open to new suggestions on that... --David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces...

With this edit, you added a bunch of   elements to David Tornheim's comment. Is there any particular reason for that? It makes the comment much more difficult to read in edit view. I've already responded to it, but others might yet do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Please see the section directly above that discusses this. Maybe you can solve the mystery. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that now, but Izno provided an answer to the "mystery" in the second comment of that thread. It's a feature of WikiEd which interacted with either a bug in whatever editor you were using, or some oddities in the way you edit, or possibly the result of some copying & pasting you did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. I do think Inzo is correct and Wikied made the changes on-Wiki to add the & nbsp ;, but it's a mystery to me as to how I accidentally inserted the non-breaking space--assuming I had. For now, I will assume Word was the cause. The problem/mystery for me is I'm not sure how to prevent Word from doing that again in the future. Word is the easiest way for me to work on drafts off-Wiki. Is the addition of those & nbsp ; going to be a problem that I should worry about? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would switch over to Notepad myself, or download Notepad++ (the latter of which I have made a plugin for that enables MediaWiki syntax highlighting. As soon as you mentioned using Word, my inner tech-support geek nodded sagely and voiced his thoughts. The type of spaces it inserts when you hit the spacebar can vary based on context. If you have more questions, it would probably be most polite to Sphilbrick for you to put them on my talk page. I can walk you through setting up notepad++ if you go that route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll throw in a nod for NoteTab Pro. I believe note tab is free but NoteTab Pro is ridiculously cheap. I occasionally use word for some things but find NoteTab Pro much better for composing Wikipedia posts. Just as one example I've got one page with all my 2018 edits which is at 42,000 lines and counting but loads almost instantly. This makes it easy to find any prior relevant posts.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions from both of you. It was Notepad++ that I was going to try. I think I had installed it on a previous computer and might have used it for HTML 5 at one point. I might try that again. MPants at work thanks for the offered help on installing it. I might take you up on that. NoteTab Pro sounds interesting as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll also add that NoteTab Pro's wildcard searches are way easier to write than Notepad++'s regex searches. But once you get used to regex, it's easy enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

I think was really needs to happen is for WikiEd to ask, "nbsp's were found in the text. Should they be converted to & nbsp;, or to regular space? Unless you're sure you know what you're doing, the safe answer is regular space." Or maybe it should just convert nbsp to regular space, period. It's almost certain that any nbsp's present are accidental. E Eng 02:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong message in template?

Hi, Sphilbrick! I happened to actually read our {{Nothanks}} template after I left one for User2693. It seems to me that the first bullet-point is no longer really applicable. If someone were to take that advice and send a forwarded permission to OTRS, would they not get a standard "No forwarded permissions" response by return of post? Is there any situation where a permission of that kind could be accepted? Asking you in particular rather than the world in general because of your activity there. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I am worried I'm missing something. The only bullet point I see is in the see also section. I agree that OTRS doesn't accept forwarded permissions (a policy I don't totally agree with) so if we suggest that we need to rethink the wording but I'm not seeing that wording. S Philbrick (Talk) 22:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am now looking at the message User_talk:User2693#Copyright_problem:_Draft:Bill_James Perhaps I should be able to figure out which template created that but I haven't figured it out. In any event my preliminary thoughts are that you are exactly right. Let me bring it up with some OTRS people. Before I do, can you track down exactly which template you used?--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant:{{Nothanks-web}}--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Already edited.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, wrong template! I read the email exchange, and the result is better. The first two bullet-points probably could (or should?) be merged, since the process is the same in each case. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

OTRS

The ticket is locked can you please unlock it. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 16:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Tiven2240, Oops, sorry, I just unlocked it. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Articles to which geographic naming conventions apply

Hi,

You deleted {{Notice-nc-geo}} 2 years ago, but this category (which seem to be the tracking category for the template) is still alive and empty. I am not sure if any other templates are using this category, but I thought you should check. — regards, Revi 09:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-revi, Sorry for the delay -- I have no opinion. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Berlioz

It will be deleted from the main article shortly as we get towards FAC. Tim riley talk 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have thanked you on my talk page for your kind help, and I just want to add a note of thanks here too. Tim riley talk 21:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Grahame Hardie

Re: Grahame Hardie biography on royalsociety.org. Royal Society IP terms state "All text published under the heading 'Biography' on Fellow profile pages is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." Do you know what I have to do to comply with that? 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

T0mpr1c3, Thanks for pointing that out. Unfortunately, the footer at the bottom of the page says:

They don't make this easy. I can accept that the comment on that page overrides the statement in the footer. Feel free to reinstate your edit, but don't be surprised if someone else challenges it. It might help if you made a note of this in an edit summary so that others will know where to look. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for taking the time to check it out. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I found what I needed, viz. --> This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. 🝨⚬ʍP (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

T0mpr1c3, Yes! That's even better. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How to reverse discretionary sanctions imposed by blocked editor?

I was came across a page today, Deep_state_in_the_United_States in which 1RR and consensus required was imposed by an editor that is now no longer an admin and is blocked. How can I get these sanctions removed? -Obsidi (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, That's an excellent question. Unfortunately, I have almost no involvement in DS and think it would be better to get advice from someone with experience. Perhaps AN? S Philbrick (Talk) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg

Hi Sphilbrick. Would you take a look at the file overwrite of File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg? The original versions were not free tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F7, and the overwrite is an attempt to remedy that; however, the free and non-free are completely different images and the speedy deletion of the non-free was contested by the uploader. It seems like it would’ve been better to upload the free image to Commons, and just add it to article as a new image. The end result may turn out to be the same, but the free version should eventually be moved to Commons if its licensing is OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I agree that in this case, it would've been better had the new image been uploaded is a different filename. However, we are where we are, and I think allowing the nonfree versions to be deleted is a very typical situation, so I'm not completely clear on what you are asking. It does raise one tiny technical point — if an image is free but prior versions are not, what happens if the image is moved to commons? Are the nonfree versions in history? I presume so. Is this a problem? I presume not. I assume a bot will take care of the move. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. My main concern is that because the uploader contested the speedy deletion using {{replaceable fair use disputed}} that the overwriting might be argued as an attempt to delete the non-free without a proper admin review. F5 deletions tend be more automatic and uncontested, whereas F7 deletions are sometimes sent to FFD for further discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I think you make an excellent point. I thought about how to undo it but that doesn't sound easy. Perhaps the issue should be sent to FFD (because I fully agree that F5 is typically more automatic and it probably is the case that this deserves a little more thought). While I have participated in reviewing at FFD I'm not sure I've ever proposed something there so I haven't thought through whether my suggestion is easy to implement are not. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a re-look at this. Apparently, based upon their posts at User talk:Adam9007#File:Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes.jpg, the uploader doesn't seem to be insisting on using the non-free file over the free version which replaced it and seems to be satisfied that both images are of the same person; so, there's probably no real point in discussing this at FFD since the non-free would almost certainly be deleted per WP:F7 and WP:NFCC#1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Sphilbrick. This appears to be another good-faith, but still mistaken overwrite if a file. The older version can also be seen as File:1987 God-is-overal ©Estate-Philippe-Vandenberg.jpg. Moreover, I think both of these may be reuploads of files previously deleted from Wikipedia or Commons for lacking permission. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I want to address this and revisit the item above, but I'm right out straight until tomorrow. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I dropped a note here--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this one too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

CPBF page deletions

Hi there,

Rather frustratingly you removed all the edits I made to the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom page (which I was in the process of greatly improving), including the section about our journal Free Press - CPBF, just because I usefully listed our aims as they appear on our about page https://www.cpbf.org.uk/about/

How do you suggest we list the aims here without getting them removed? There is no copyright issue because it is simply a factual list - I am the National Organiser of CPBF and our National Council want me to list our aims on the Wikipedia page about this - can you advise?

Also, is there anyway of retrieving the edits I made where I began to add details of our journal Free Press - CPBF?

I must say having my good faith edits completely removed in this way rather disincentivizes me trying to add to and improve Wikipedia :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdaviescoates (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Jdaviescoates, You made reference to the fact that this is your journal. This means you have a conflict of interest and should review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. Please pay particular attention to the section that says you are required to disclosure conflict of interest. I fully understand that you are probably unaware that this is a requirement for it is important.

Regarding the list — the copyright status of lists can be tricky, but not in this case. a list of aims is most definitely covered by copyright. While there are some processes to license and appropriately I don't encourage this as as inclusion of this material is not appropriate. A list of aims might not exactly be a mission statement but it's close enough that the following essay is relevant Wikipedia:Avoid_mission_statements. that is an essay, so it doesn't have the same force as a policy or guideline, but but inclusion is definitely not warranted. I understand you may be interested in adding material explaining what the organization thinks about itself, but that's not the goal of an encyclopedia article. We want to know what reliable sources say about the organization not with the organization says about itself. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)