User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 103

Revision deletion
Hi Sphilbrick, I've noticed that you've recently deleted some history revisions, so I thought I could call on you. There's a not so collaborative user who wrote this in an edit summary yesterday. I'm sure this should be deleted and he should be warned not to write again such things, also I think some of his recents edit summaries (visible here) might be considered inappropriate or even incivil, but I'm leaving such an evaluation to you. I hope this report of mine was useful, bye. 5.170.47.122 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out — I've responded, I don't know how it will go. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Password section revert
Hi Sphilbrick. I don't think the recent revert was a good one. First, it cast too wide a net and change more material then needed. Second, I help write the book and I am listed in the credits. Third, Dr. Gutmann agreed to allow the use of the three paragraphs. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , On your first point, that's possible. It is common practice, when identifying a copyright issue, not to simply remove the material identified or even undo the particular edit identified, but to do a rollback which will reverse all consecutive edits by the same editor. This decision surprises some editors. However, it is quite common that when a single editor makes a sequence of edits, there is often a connection between the edits. For example, the editor might remove some text in one edit and replace it with different text in the subsequent edit. If the second edit is reverted but not the first, then there is a hole in the material. As another example, if an editor adds some text and then make subsequent modifications to that text, one cannot simply remove the first edit without determining what to do with the subsequent edits. Those edits are attempting to modify text that may no longer may be in the article. For these two reasons and others, it is common to use the rollback option. While it is always technically possible to review, not just the edit identified as potentially problematic, but all preceding and subsequent edits by the same editor, and carefully reconstruct what should have happened without the problematic text, that's a considerable effort, almost an order of magnitude more complicated than simply doing a rollback. Given the hundreds of reports each week, there aren't enough volunteers to take on that level of analysis on each and every report. It is the case that a small fraction of such rollbacks need further analysis and that can be done if warranted. Let's review the other two points before drawing a conclusion about this one.
 * The other two points are less persuasive than you might have otherwise expected. Obviously, if the material in question is properly licensed or a permission statement for its use is filed appropriately, the copyright problem is obviated although they may still be issues regarding whether the source is a reliable source. I don't know who you are, no do I know Dr. Gutmann. I don't know whether that person, or you or some combination or someone else is the copyright holder. Furthermore, even if we can establish that Dr. Gutmann is the copyrightholder and therefore in a position to provide permission, we have established procedures, and assertions by anonymous editors is not sufficient.
 * If you would like to arrange for permission for the relevant text there are instructions here:
 * Donating_copyrighted_materials. Obviously, if permission is arranged for all of the text, it will be straightforward to undo the reversion and let others address the question of whether the material constitutes a reliable source. (It will also have to be properly cited — I don't recall whether that was done or not.) If you don't want to pursue the permission, but you think some otherwise acceptable material was removed as part of the rollback, you can either identify it and I will help you restore it or you can simply restore it yourself whichever you prefer. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you would like to arrange for permission for the relevant text there are instructions here:
 * Donating_copyrighted_materials. Obviously, if permission is arranged for all of the text, it will be straightforward to undo the reversion and let others address the question of whether the material constitutes a reliable source. (It will also have to be properly cited — I don't recall whether that was done or not.) If you don't want to pursue the permission, but you think some otherwise acceptable material was removed as part of the rollback, you can either identify it and I will help you restore it or you can simply restore it yourself whichever you prefer. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Re I don't know who you are, no do I know Dr. Gutmann. Forgive my ignorance. If you don't have any subject matter expertise, what are you doing trying to technical edit the article? You are just causing harm. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. My edits relate to copyright issues, about which I know a fair amount. Frankly, I didn't even pay attention to the subject matter of the article. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. My edits relate to copyright issues, about which I know a fair amount. Frankly, I didn't even pay attention to the subject matter of the article. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Death by burning
Not only you revert a relevant edit I made, you even delete the edit from the public archives so no one can see what I wrote? All my edit was referenced and was relevant due to the fact that someone else wrote that Islam punishes apostates by burning, which is fake and you don't seem to have noticed such thing is written. Please answer this with logic and reason.
 * (Please sign your posts so it is easier to respond to you.) It was flagged as a copyright violation of material found here. Do you disagree? I note that you said you referenced it, but referencing is insufficient — you need to write the material in your own words in most cases. When we encounter a copyright violation, we do a revision deletion because we do not want copyright violations in Wikipedia, even in prior versions.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for clarification. Maravjua (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Removed the whole edit because I used the eact language of a patent
I'm kind of taken that the whole edit was removed because I used the language from a patent to describe the science behind a electronic water treatment device. Please reconsider this. First - patent applications are public domain. Also please review the law about this issue. Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions unless it is properly marked during its application. Besides not being masked during the application process this patent has long expired releasing it to general public use. Therfore Copyright does not apply in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.66.21 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that patent wording is in the public domain. Our tool identified the text in a page that was identified as subject to full copyright (I think, I'd have to check) that's certainly not your fault, and possibly deserves double checking. You didn't identify the article in question (I deal with dozens of these issues every day and while I vaguely remember something to do with a patent I don't recall the article). I don't recall with you properly referenced the source of the text. If you did, and the issue isn't copyright itself but a question about whether it's relevant to include a substantial portion of the text of the patent in an article. I'm quite sure this is been discussed rejected which is not to say none of it belongs but it will turn into an editorial discussion about the appropriateness of the inclusion of the text. Let's start by having you identify the relevant articles so I can look further. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance as I am a newbie at doing this. I appreciate your promptness and desire to make sure things are correct. The article that I'm refering to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_water_treatment Thanks for your patience and clear explanations its very refreshing and inclusive.Jasonwrusk1111 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm kind of taken that the whole edit was removed because I used the language from a patent to describe the science behind a electronic water treatment device. Please reconsider this. First - patent applications are public domain. Also, please review the law about this issue. Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions unless it is properly marked during its application. Besides not being masked during the application process this patent has long expired releasing it to general public use. Therfore Copyright does not apply in this instance. Please revert the edit back to its original state thank you.Jasonwrusk1111 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to sign the previous post nd though it didnt post. My appologies for the double post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonwrusk1111 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I decided to revert. I think there are still issues to consider, but I'm satisfied they aren't copyright issues-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Mine Own Executioner
Hi, I notice you have removed excerpts I posted today from the N.Y. Times review on this film's page. Could you please clarify? I see the reason you gave was for copyright reasons, but surely excerpts from printed sources are allowed? They are after all used in many articles on films. Or should I have quoted more sparingly from the source? Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , The problem was the length.
 * Quotes are permitted but convention in Wikipedia is for shorter quotes than are often permitted elsewhere. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quotes are permitted but convention in Wikipedia is for shorter quotes than are often permitted elsewhere. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

O.K thanks, I'll maybe look at shortening it. Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, my apologies for not making that clearer in my edit summary. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

S Philbrick, no worries. Beryl reid fan (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Teahouse (saw a question that you might be able to answer)
Not my question but another editor (User:Windiashe) is asking why their edit was removed over at North America's Forgotten Past. I looked at the edit history and it says you removed the edit because of a copyright issue. Perhaps you could explain to Windiashe why the edit was reverted over at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Error editing? Thanks! (and maybe, we might have to delete the question as it might have the copyrighted material) 173.52.238.41 (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I understand about the rest of the things that I added was copied and pasted from their site of the other books...but the first one was me trying to move the information to the correct spot.-Windiashe
 * Sounds like you've sorted out the problem. It's a common misconception that it's okay to start by copying some copyrighted material into an article or draft or user subpage, and then rewrite it to eliminate the copyright problem. In short, that's not the case. We don't permit copyrighted material to remain in historical versions of articles. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of my revisions for Sgt. Preston TV series
I would like to know why you reversed all my revisions on the Sergeant Preston of the Yukon TV Series. In my defense, the changes were made due to repeated viewing of the series on FETV and on YouTube. I am trying to find corroborating evidence to justify the changes and make references where necessary. If there are any additional advice for making revisions, please let me know. I always want to continue to learn to make informed changes. Thank you!!! Marinerdog (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , The material you added appeared to have been copied or closely paraphrased from a copyrighted site. I typically identify the source of the material in the edit summary which is viewable in the article history. (As an aside, I suspect most editors here at Wikipedia I had never seen the show when it was current, maybe not even in reruns that I have fond memories of watching it while growing up) S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick/Fram
Hello, Mr. Sphilbrick. The Fram saga is really interesting that I've been trying to be up-to-date on the matter. I've come to notice that you've tabulated information such as pages related to the Fram saga at User:Sphilbrick/Fram. It is really helpful for new users like myself to find my way around the many related pages. There are, however, some minor improvements I'd like to suggest, such as removing pages that have no direct material regarding the saga, like the Office Action information pages or the "Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019". When I was looking at the table, those pages made it slightly confusing to navigate. Wishing you the best. KoopaLoopa (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Sphilbrick, not sure if you missed my ping. I wrote, if you include the Precipitating edit, you should also include diffs of the prior edits for which the second warning of Fram occurred.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Didn't miss it, working on it, thanks S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sphilbrick!  starship .paint  (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Looking but failing. I think I've seen them, but not pinning them down at the moment. If you can remind me, that will help, or I can keep looking. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick here they are!  From here!   starship  .paint  (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , That was quick! If I don't add them immediately, it's because I think I want to break out a section on historical info e.g. prior Fram ANI and ArbCom involvement, and these links belong in that section I think. I'm still mulling structure. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, do it well :)  starship .paint  (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I added some explanatory footnotes. I think people interested in the subject will be interested in those, so I don't want to remove them, but the footnotes now clarify that they do not directly mention Fram. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sound ;) KoopaLoopa (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ye know, the Fram saga is getting out of control with the admins going on strike. Like, isn't that the very definition of being not here? Why do they feel so morally right when they've been deliberately violating policy and the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in the name of protecting "democracy"? They claim to be doing things to protect Wikipedia but in the long-term this is going to go down badly for the whole website and they're just doing it because they didn't like the way the rightful owners of Wikipedia are handling it. When we all signed up for an account, we agreed to abide by the ToS, but these people are already breaking the ToS with all these stunts. Fram is just one person, he might have said improper things or followed another editor around for years (from what I read), but the others in the outrage are not doing it the right way. 2¢. KoopaLoopa (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

User page
Really cool user page I can relate to sports. I think your the best admin. Logawinner (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! (Most editors come here to complain, so that's a nice change of pace.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

WDSO
I know it's been 2 months, but I am enabling email now... Hopefully you can email me the information. I do not see how this is a conflict of interest as the station is a non profit organization, and I am a student volunteer at the station... Nonetheless, I will revise it and make it correct. thank you Jakeweitzel (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I emailed the edits to you.
 * Have you read Conflict_of_interest? I'm puzzled that you think your situation doesn't qualify as a conflict of interest. Is it because you are a volunteer and aren't being paid? If our guidance is not clear on this point perhaps we need to make it clearer.
 * When you read our guideline, please note that there are some disclosure requirements that you have not yet addressed and I see you are editing the article once again. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you read our guideline, please note that there are some disclosure requirements that you have not yet addressed and I see you are editing the article once again. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When you read our guideline, please note that there are some disclosure requirements that you have not yet addressed and I see you are editing the article once again. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)



Well, seeing as I graduated last month and am no longer affiliated with the station... I know I didn't make that clear earlier...
 * OK. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pedro Zamora content
Hi! You deleted this as a copyright issue. I didn’t add the image so I can’t vouch for it, but the text all came from Wikipedia’s Pedro Zamora’s page. Is it possible that website copied from us? The Stonewall Riots look identical to what we have. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , please follow the guideline at Copying within Wikipedia to keep it from being reverted as a copyvio. Thanks S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ll check it out, thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I'd do it for you but I'm traveling today. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I re-added it correctly, and even fixed some errors. I’m not sure the best way to address all the other entries? Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK thanks. Let's let the others go, unless they get picked up by Copy Patrol, which seems unlikely. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio Help Request
Hello. I've noticed that you process many copyvio revdels, so I assumed that you would be a good person to ask. In Saurashtra people, I have found some copyvio incidents. In the most obvious cases, I have removed it and tagged it for revdel. However, there are many more instances that are simply a sentence. Could you take a look at these and provide advice? They are all listed in Earwig. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I went to look at it, but Nthep has handled it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Skin Effect, RD1
Hi! You recently processed a reported copyright violation of skin effect. I'm trying to understand what happened. There was copy vio reported by Masum Reza. I looked and did not see anything that looked like a copy vio. Was it already deleted? Did you do just remove the violation template or was there something deleted that I could not see? Constant314 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was material added that matched the text at this site. It was removed, then I did a revision deletion, so neither the addition nor the deletion is currently visible. Let me know if you need more information. S Philbrick (Talk)  22:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , In fact, it appears that you were the editor who removed the problematic material. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not not convinced that my explanation covers everything, as some of the material at the site I linked, which persuaded me that there was a problem needing removal, is still there, so we may need to talk further. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I did revert a huge insertion of material that was obvious vandalism.  Maybe it was in there and I didn't see it. Constant314 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm traveling at the moment, will check into it this afternoon. (I do know that reverts of vandalism can register as a false positive, so I'll look into that.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Looking a little bit closer it's very possible I misread the situation. As I noted, reversion of vandalism can result in a false-positive. The reason for this is that many Wikipedia articles are mirrored elsewhere. If one editor vandalize the article by removing some of the text, and then a second editor reverts the edit, the text in the second edit will match text in a mirrored site and it pops up as a potential copyright violation even though it really isn't. It looks to me like your edit was find and it's highly possible that the revision deletion wasn't necessary but I think it's water over the dam and I don't see any need to revisit that — this seems to be enough other problems occurring now. If I understand correctly, you have to raised a question because you didn't understand what happened and I will reiterate that I think your edit was fine. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. It was just for my curiosity.  Thanks for the explanation. Constant314 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

copyvio
Hi, i've noticed that you deleted my edits on Electronic fingerprint recognition. I think you should delete the corresponding edits on Fingerprint, as the content you deleted was copy-pasted from that article. Pancho507 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you copy that material from an existing Wikipedia article, that's acceptable, but it must be done in a particular way as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia. Is that what happened? S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cal State LA article
SPhilbrick, I see you removed content from the Cal State LA article earlier today. I've been following the IP-hopping editor revising the article for the last couple days, and have growing concerns that much of the content he/she is adding is plagiarized from the university website and/or catalog. I haven't had time to check carefully yet, but the new section on the university badge was clearly lifted from Public Affairs' webpage. At the moment, I just wanted to give you a heads up about this since you've already acted on the article, but it may need semi-protection log enough to clear out the copyvios if my suspicions prove out. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

very cool table
I really appreciate you putting all that time and effort into that. I wouldn't even know how to begin - but I was curious. I thank you. — Ched : ?    —  18:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Let me thank you also here for it. Zezen (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • 1 • Flyguy649 • 2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
 * 1 's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
 * 2 's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg 28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
 * In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
 * The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
 * The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
 * A request for comment seeks to determine whether Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news
 * The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous
 * In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop . This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bhangarh Fort
I think you accidentally reinstated the original COPYVIOs. So I rolled it back to a previous version before these were added by User:Mac19875426. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , very possible, I'm trying to edit while watching my grandson, and may have missed something. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you caught the copyvios that I didn’t previously notice, so you’re doing OK despite distractions;) -LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Illuminae Edit revision
Hi! I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editing and my plot summary section was reverted. I compared what I had added to other book wiki pages and they also had a section of the publisher's summary written verbatim so I was under the assumption that it was allowed. Is it because I titled the section incorrectly? Like should it have been "synopsis" instead. Or did I cite the wrong website? RiceKristy (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , The short answer is that including a publisher's summary is generally not allowed. There is an exception for material appropriately licensed (but this is extremely rare in the case of a publisher — in theory it could happen, but I don't recall any such case), or in the case of material that's public domain for other reasons (published prior to 1924, or between 1925 in 1978 under certain circumstances).
 * That said, I'm not at all surprised by your observation that you have seen other examples of this happening. There are literally tens of thousands of editors adding information in fewer than a dozen people actively watching for copyright issues so I won't be surprised if something slipped through the cracks. Our processes are improving so I wouldn't be surprised by such an instance happening a few years ago while less likely to happen in the last couple years. If you want to point out any such instances, I'll be happy to take a look at them. In general, we want material to be written in the editors own words. That includes books summaries and movie plot summaries. The existence of such summaries written by publishers and places like IMDb make it very easy for someone to copy and paste the material but we are officially opposed to that practice. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, I'm not at all surprised by your observation that you have seen other examples of this happening. There are literally tens of thousands of editors adding information in fewer than a dozen people actively watching for copyright issues so I won't be surprised if something slipped through the cracks. Our processes are improving so I wouldn't be surprised by such an instance happening a few years ago while less likely to happen in the last couple years. If you want to point out any such instances, I'll be happy to take a look at them. In general, we want material to be written in the editors own words. That includes books summaries and movie plot summaries. The existence of such summaries written by publishers and places like IMDb make it very easy for someone to copy and paste the material but we are officially opposed to that practice. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks so much for clarifying! RiceKristy (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion on Greg Guirard's Wikipage
Hello Sphilbrick. Thanks for your tips on creating an article ensuring it won´t be deleted. I recently discovered Greg Guirard's work and was shocked that he didn´t have a wikipage, therefore I am determined to fill that gap. I have re-created it from schatch and would be very thankful if you could have a look at it: Greg Guirard Thank you very much.Caravasar(Talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)