User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 104

Economic history of India
The page that you have provided is itself copied from here,the official website of the Indian Ordnance Factories I have copyedited the content. It would be very kind of you if you could restore my edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.7.147 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying the original source. That source does not appear to be appropriately licensed for use in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "copyedited" the content. I guess you mean you made some minor change, rather than 100% copy-paste, but that makes it close paraphrasing, which is still a copyright violation.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting me, I meant paraphrasing / rephrasing. The content has dates and names which would be impossible to alter. Plus, it doesn't even look close to the original. I will be very grateful to you if you could help me edit it. Thanks!
 * Just edited the article, added references too. kindly have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.7.147 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't on the same page. It was so close to the original that I had to look very closely to find some changed words. No one expects you to change date or names, but you should put the source aside and write in your own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely agree with you. In the effort to avoid copy violation, I think I have messed up the content so I did not edit it further. Perhaps you can help me with that whenever you are free, instead of removing the content altogether. English is not my first language and I do tend to make errors here and there. Your help will be highly appreciated. Thanks again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.7.147 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you register an account, you'll get a ping whenever I respond to you so you won't have to keep checking to see if I've posted
 * I don't think we are communicating well. I looked at your two recent edits in the first sentence of your edit is word for word identical to the source. Can you explain in your own words what you are trying to do? S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are communicating well. I looked at your two recent edits in the first sentence of your edit is word for word identical to the source. Can you explain in your own words what you are trying to do? S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019  French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit to Hematopoetic system
Apologies, your reversion of HS is in because in my haste I didn't attribute my move of the content from Haematopoetic system. My content is copied with attribution in the history from Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with content which appears to predate the February blog post you have flagged in the edit summary.

If you identify further copyvio information in my article please reconcile the timing of which came first. If Wikipedia is indeed copied from the blog, I am happy to look into it and fix both articles but please don't revert my entire work on the second article as the topic is independently notable and it is much easier to start a brief overview with existing Wikipedia content than from scratch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Do you need something restored? The title in the section is a red think but doesn't seem to be recently deleted so I'm not quite sure where it is.
 * Our copy patrol software works wonderfully in most cases but there is one exception that could use a fix that hasn't yet occurred. If someone copies material from one Wikipedia article to another, it is quite common that the original material also has been copied by someone at another site. The software checks for close comparison to other sites but not to Wikipedia so it doesn't detect that the material might remove result from a move or copy within Wikipedia. In most cases this is a nonissue because the Wikipedia rules are that you should note this in your edit summary and I always check the edit summary. However, if you failed to note it in the edit summary, it won't get detected in May get reverted as a potential copyright issue.
 * Please see Copying_within_Wikipedia For our best practices in these situations. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out and for your explanation + link. Have corrected one typo and created a redirect at the other. All the best on your wikivoyages, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Copying_within_Wikipedia For our best practices in these situations. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out and for your explanation + link. Have corrected one typo and created a redirect at the other. All the best on your wikivoyages, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your status on climate change task force
In May, another user asked you about your status at climate change task force. Is it OK if I move you to "inactive"? You can move yourself back at any time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

{{done)) If you get interested/available again, see you there! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Reports
Please come handle to reports at Administrator intervention against vandalism before they get stale. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not my bailiwick S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Cecil B. DeMille
Hello, I am the editor who has been working on Cecil B. DeMille. Why did you revert my edit with this url as the edit summary http://photoschoices.blogspot.com/2017/06/cecil-b-demille-photo.html? I'm not sure how but many hours of my work were reverted, with most of them being individual prose changes and reorganization of passages and sections for more logical flow that I have been making across many edits. BI can no longer revert the change because I made a minor formatting edit before I noticed this issue. Do you have any idea what happened? I am a little upset that I have to redo hours of work manually. The prior edit I had made that you reverted was the minor addition of quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. I don't understand how half of the article was changed. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I reverted your edits because of the copyright violation of material identified as matching the link provided.
 * If it is your contention that it was not a copyright violation and I was mistaken please explain why and I can undo it if your explanation is satisfactory.
 * Please be aware that adding quotation marks to avoid plagiarism is not remotely acceptable. I have often had editors explained that they referenced the material as if that resolved a copyright issue.
 * It is the case that very short quotations if marked as quotations and properly referenced are acceptable but that didn't seem to be the case here. In general, material added should be in your own words. There are exceptions for material that's properly licensed (although that alone does not make it automatically okay) and exceptions for short quotations if they are appropriate as quotations. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I want you to understand that I do appreciate that you put a lot of work into those edits and I hate having to undo so much work but I also can't abide letting copyright issues go. There may be a simple solution. I can restore all of the edits (or you can), and you can fix the copyright issue. Let me know when you are done, and then I can do a revision deletion of the copyrighted material. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is Skyes(BYU). I don’t work on the weekends, but I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the copyright error by rewording the sentence to represent what the author was saying without using quotes or close paraphrasing. I had originally had the sentence the way it was, because I felt that Scott Eyman used the best words to describe DeMille’s style and I wanted to maintain that description because I felt that it was the best way for the reader to understand. I figured having the reference at the end of the sentence and including “According to Scott Eyman” at the beginning was adequate for copyright, but I guess I learn something new every day.
 * , Thanks for your response. Again, I'm sorry that I ended up creating so much work for you.
 * It is possible that including "according to Scott Eyman" followed by a direct quote in quotation marks would be okay. I confess I did not check closely. I can relook at it if you want but it sounds like you've resolved the situation. Let me add a couple more comments because I think my first response to you was a bit harsh.
 * I look at hundreds of possible copyright issues every week. It is clear to me that our school system is failing our students based on how often someone simply copies and paste the material and think that's appropriate. A few minutes ago, I just reverted and edit where the editor apparently knew they couldn't just copy and paste but they thought that adding attribution was enough. There are other situations where someone seems to know they can't simply paste and act as if it's their own wording but they think that simply adding quotation marks before and after the passage solves the problem. I probably overreacted to your explanation that you intended to do that. I'm in total agreement that use of a quote is often appropriate, either because there is a delightful turn of phrase that ought to be reproduced, or perhaps the statement itself is a famous bit of history and ought to be shown directly rather than paraphrased. While the judicious use of a short quote constitutes good editing, slapping quotation marks before and after a long passage is lazy editing. It's a general practice within Wikipedia that we permit shorter quotes than are often permitted in other publications, partly to make sure we steer clear of any potential copyright violations.
 * I don't want to leave the impression that use of quotations is bad — it can be very appropriate and very effective when used appropriately, but I also see it abused. I have to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but 9 times out of 10, when someone paste the passage in put quotes around it, the better editing approach would be a rewrite in the editor's own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible that including "according to Scott Eyman" followed by a direct quote in quotation marks would be okay. I confess I did not check closely. I can relook at it if you want but it sounds like you've resolved the situation. Let me add a couple more comments because I think my first response to you was a bit harsh.
 * I look at hundreds of possible copyright issues every week. It is clear to me that our school system is failing our students based on how often someone simply copies and paste the material and think that's appropriate. A few minutes ago, I just reverted and edit where the editor apparently knew they couldn't just copy and paste but they thought that adding attribution was enough. There are other situations where someone seems to know they can't simply paste and act as if it's their own wording but they think that simply adding quotation marks before and after the passage solves the problem. I probably overreacted to your explanation that you intended to do that. I'm in total agreement that use of a quote is often appropriate, either because there is a delightful turn of phrase that ought to be reproduced, or perhaps the statement itself is a famous bit of history and ought to be shown directly rather than paraphrased. While the judicious use of a short quote constitutes good editing, slapping quotation marks before and after a long passage is lazy editing. It's a general practice within Wikipedia that we permit shorter quotes than are often permitted in other publications, partly to make sure we steer clear of any potential copyright violations.
 * I don't want to leave the impression that use of quotations is bad — it can be very appropriate and very effective when used appropriately, but I also see it abused. I have to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but 9 times out of 10, when someone paste the passage in put quotes around it, the better editing approach would be a rewrite in the editor's own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I look at hundreds of possible copyright issues every week. It is clear to me that our school system is failing our students based on how often someone simply copies and paste the material and think that's appropriate. A few minutes ago, I just reverted and edit where the editor apparently knew they couldn't just copy and paste but they thought that adding attribution was enough. There are other situations where someone seems to know they can't simply paste and act as if it's their own wording but they think that simply adding quotation marks before and after the passage solves the problem. I probably overreacted to your explanation that you intended to do that. I'm in total agreement that use of a quote is often appropriate, either because there is a delightful turn of phrase that ought to be reproduced, or perhaps the statement itself is a famous bit of history and ought to be shown directly rather than paraphrased. While the judicious use of a short quote constitutes good editing, slapping quotation marks before and after a long passage is lazy editing. It's a general practice within Wikipedia that we permit shorter quotes than are often permitted in other publications, partly to make sure we steer clear of any potential copyright violations.
 * I don't want to leave the impression that use of quotations is bad — it can be very appropriate and very effective when used appropriately, but I also see it abused. I have to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but 9 times out of 10, when someone paste the passage in put quotes around it, the better editing approach would be a rewrite in the editor's own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to leave the impression that use of quotations is bad — it can be very appropriate and very effective when used appropriately, but I also see it abused. I have to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but 9 times out of 10, when someone paste the passage in put quotes around it, the better editing approach would be a rewrite in the editor's own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , I totally understand. I realize there are a lot of copyright issues and uninformed editors on Wikipedia. It's probably better to be overly scrutinizing than anything, considering that the majority of possible copyright issues you come across are completely valid. No hard feelings. I appreciate your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I normally do not make edits on my pages when I’m off work. I already redid most of the undone work so I wanted to make this was fixed now so I didn’t have to redo it again. So no need to redo any work or revert any edits. It’s all good. Thanks for you attention to the article. This is an article I really care about and I want it to be at its best for the reader. -Skyes(BYU)

Deletion on Medical Counselling Committee page
Hey, Vatsal here. I notice you deleted the PG admissions section on the above mentioned page. Could you let me know why? VatsalJain1710 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I explained in the edit summary:
 * Cv http://mccnews.in/pg-medical-counseling/
 * (Cv stands for copyright violation) S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * (Cv stands for copyright violation) S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Removing Cooper's donuts info
I object to the removal. I mean I gave a reference and it's information that's lacking. What's wing with letting the public see the truth??? Photolarry (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I work hard to try to give correct information. It's unfair to remove this further documentation Photolarry (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , Referencing isn't sufficient; in general, you have to write your own words. The material that was added was a pure copy and paste. Let me know if you think the source wasn't copyrighted. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That was the whole point....I did copy and paste because I wanted the referenced quote to be word for word. I thought that was better. Now you say that is not? That I should alter the wording? Because I can change a few of the words if that will get you to leave the content in tact for historical purposes. This is not documented much. I was merely trying to expand information on this incident. Photolarry (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)photolarry I have entered one sentence with a slight change to quote of the first line and then a reference link. Is that better?? Photolarry (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)photolarry

Burghley Park Cricket Club page
Please can you explain why you have deleted my page, when the text that was apparently causing the copyright infringement belongs to our cricket club, and not the website that you cited?

As a cricket club we have a written history of our past, and this was submitted to the Wikipedia page I was creating. It also appears on other websites, but the copy does not belong to them and is not being stolen from another source.

JCBiggs (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , When CopyPatrol (our copyright detector tool) identifies some text is being very similar to some text at another site, it identifies that other site and occasionally identifies alternative sites but doesn't necessarily identify the original source when one site copies from another. The situation you describe, namely that some text you added manages a site that may have copied from the official source, is fairly common. However, that means it is still a copyright violation and left the original source has freely licensed the text. You didn't really speak to this issue — can you tell me whether the cricket club, presumably the copyright holder of the original text, has freely licensed the text? S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , If the original text is freely licensed, and you've noted this on the article (I can help you if you don't have to do this), I'll be happy to revert the removal. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

, Yes the text is freely licensed, as the author has no objections to its public use. Please can you advise how to note this and reverse the deletion of the page? Thanks. JCBiggs (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , These two:
 * "freely licensed,"
 * "author has no objections to its public use"
 * are not the same thing. The first is required, while the second is insufficient.
 * I looked at the draft to see if you had and a link to the actual site but I didn't find it.
 * Is this the right place ?
 * Please point me to the license statement associated with the text.
 * It is not enough for the copyright holder to tell you personally that you can reuse the material we need to have either a formal permission statement on file or clear licensing statement on the source of the text. I know this sounds a little bureaucratic but we want to make sure we respect copyrights. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the license statement associated with the text.
 * It is not enough for the copyright holder to tell you personally that you can reuse the material we need to have either a formal permission statement on file or clear licensing statement on the source of the text. I know this sounds a little bureaucratic but we want to make sure we respect copyrights. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not enough for the copyright holder to tell you personally that you can reuse the material we need to have either a formal permission statement on file or clear licensing statement on the source of the text. I know this sounds a little bureaucratic but we want to make sure we respect copyrights. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m really confused by this. Just because the text is used on another website, despite the fact it was written by our club, you’re not allowing us to use it without a license?
 * No, not at all.

If I requested it be deleted from the other site, so it no longer appears on the web at another source, surely this would then be ok?
 * Absolutely not.

The text wasn’t written by or is owned by the other source, so I can’t work out why we have to do all this? JCBiggs (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with being on another site.

Further to this, I have now added the text to our website under a Creative Commons license.
 * That's what we need, if I can confirm it.

I am struggling to attach a link, but you can easily find it if you revisit our website via your above attached link. JCBiggs (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I restored the draft. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

JCBiggs (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if JCBiggs did not do it, S Philbrick should have provided this link : Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club. Without it anybody doing Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club would never know about the above discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I'm not following. Where should I have posted that link and why? S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake! surely my message was clear enough. I think that Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club should report this talk page. How should that be achieved? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , There are many editors posting on this talk page about issues involve a copyright revert. I did a very quick and casual count, and see 18 such reports, only 2 of which manged to link to the article in question. It has always been a source of frustration, that I have to do some research to figure out what the hell they are talking about, which wouldn't be necessary if they linked to the article in question. But I remind myself that these are almost invariably new editors, who do not know that it is polite and standard to include a link to an article when you come to discuss that article. I don't think I've ever chastised them for failing to follow protocol, because they don't yet know that protocol.
 * However, my response to them does not always include a link to the article, because while I don't know which article they are talking about, they typically do. It seems to me that you are suggesting it is my responsibility to tell them what article they are discussing, not for their benefit, because they obviously know, but for the benefit of some third party you haven't yet identified, and for a purpose you haven't yet identified.
 * That's astounding. But I'm intrigued to learn who and why.
 * On the chance you are going to explain why it should be done, I just modified the message at the top of my talk page to encourage editors to include such a link. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Cannot you just accept that I insist on wikilinks and you do not. For whose benefit? Me! is sufficient.
 * Here is an example. In 2018 December I received a message here about a certain article.. Making a Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Kirk Deviere enquiry told me that I had already been asked about this matter in August and I was able to word my reply in December appropriately. If the link in August had been coded as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Kirk_Deviere or omitted entirely it would not have been recorded in the data base. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Do you have any idea how rude you sound? I find this exchange astounding for two reasons. One is that while we haven't interacted directly very much, we have tons of indirect interactions. I try to handle several hundred copyright incidents each month, many of which result in a G12 and you are one of the most prolific admins handling articles tagged as a G12. I thank you for your diligent work in an area that is probably often underappreciated. On occasion, I have considered having a direct conversation because I count on the four eyes principal — namely, that if I take something as a G 12 but overlook something, by tagging it rather than deleting it outright at least one other administrator is looking at it and might catch something if I miss it. It may be important to know if you see it differently. However, the point is that you see hundreds of my tags each month, so I'm not some random administrator, we work in similar circles, so I'm perplexed that you are taking such an adversarial attitude.
 * The second reason is that this community is going through one of its biggest upheavals in history. While the facts are still muddy, it is possible that an administrator has received a very substantial ban, not because they misused their tools, but because their communications style was suboptimal. I happen to think that administrators have to set a good example when it comes to collegial interaction with others.
 * That leaves me puzzled at the way you are going about this. Instead of politely bringing to my attention that it would personally help you if I made a point linking to an article when discussing an article with another editor, you came to my talk page, didn't even directly address me but told someone else I was deficient for failing to include a link. I was taken aback because I did not understand that this was a requirement (because it's not) and politely asked what you are talking about. Your responses continue to be combative, although civil and I just don't quite get what I've done to offend you.
 * You've now admitted that you want me to change my processes solely to benefit you. I can sympathize with that desire — I often want things changed around here in ways that would benefit me, but I can't imagine thinking the best way to make that happen is to be rude, abrasive and barely communicative.
 * I'm having a challenging week. My brother is in the hospital and getting them to tell me what's going on is like pulling teeth. Perhaps you are having a tough week as well — I hope this is the usual way you communicate. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having a challenging week. My brother is in the hospital and getting them to tell me what's going on is like pulling teeth. Perhaps you are having a tough week as well — I hope this is the usual way you communicate. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having a challenging week. My brother is in the hospital and getting them to tell me what's going on is like pulling teeth. Perhaps you are having a tough week as well — I hope this is the usual way you communicate. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewed intention to work on deleted page Draft:Maggie_Dent
Hi Sphilbrick, you deleted Draft:Maggie_Dent a while ago. I'm more organised now, intend to complete work on this page and before recreating a page similar to the one you deleted I thought it important to make contact first. Willambrose (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you want the draft restored, just say the word. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your reply. I will start from scratch as I have prepared new material. I'm just following the guidelines of letting you know that I will be starting a new draft - since you were the moderator that previously deleted it. Cheers. Willambrose (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Francis Kernan
Why? Manannan67 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I explained in my edit summary:
 *  Cv https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/francis-kernan
 * (CV means copyright violation) S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Catholic Encyclopedia is in the Public Domain as the template both in the citation and the Reference section indicate. It's also in Wikisource. Please clarify.Manannan67 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , This site:
 * https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/francis-kernan
 * contains this:
 * Copyright © 1996-2019 Catholic Answers
 * at the bottom.
 * Are they in error? S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that site has done an abysmal job of identifying the relevant licensing. I still haven't found a clear indication anywhere on that site but I accept it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Half the time "Catholic Answers" is a wikimirror. They apparently just copied the text from, (New Advent has a lengthy discussion why they chose material from an edition no later than 1913, because it is PD.) which is the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia. (please note the identical Author and text). They do not own any copyright on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" as should be evident by the fact that so much of it is copied to Wikisource. Their so-called copyright can only pertain to their own material, such as commentary and perhaps images. Please see WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics: "you are welcome to start by copying and pasting the text from the Catholic Encyclopedia which was first published from 1908 to 1913 and entered the public domain in 1993. Wikipedia has a number of templates for use with CE material -which were all in place. Please reverse the reversion. ty. Manannan67 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , You could have saved yourself some time, as I already reverted. Sorry, thought that was clear. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I took "I accept it" as relating to CA's bizarre claim. Manannan67 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , My apologies for not being clear enough. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that site has done an abysmal job of identifying the relevant licensing. I still haven't found a clear indication anywhere on that site but I accept it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Half the time "Catholic Answers" is a wikimirror. They apparently just copied the text from, (New Advent has a lengthy discussion why they chose material from an edition no later than 1913, because it is PD.) which is the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia. (please note the identical Author and text). They do not own any copyright on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" as should be evident by the fact that so much of it is copied to Wikisource. Their so-called copyright can only pertain to their own material, such as commentary and perhaps images. Please see WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics: "you are welcome to start by copying and pasting the text from the Catholic Encyclopedia which was first published from 1908 to 1913 and entered the public domain in 1993. Wikipedia has a number of templates for use with CE material -which were all in place. Please reverse the reversion. ty. Manannan67 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , You could have saved yourself some time, as I already reverted. Sorry, thought that was clear. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I took "I accept it" as relating to CA's bizarre claim. Manannan67 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , My apologies for not being clear enough. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , My apologies for not being clear enough. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * no problem. Manannan67 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Delta Alpha Pi (honor society)
May I ask which section you think is problematic? The History, I thought I rephrased enough and the Symbols are definitely cut down. Membership is a copy, but in this case, I thought that as formal admission requirements, they represented something that could be copied without an issue. Let me know which is the problem so that I can rephrase if necessary.Naraht (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , The membership section of Delta Alpha Pi (honor society). You are an experienced editor and should know that you cannot simply copy, not even with attribution. At a minimum, include the copied material in a blockquote. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...Naraht (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rephrased.Naraht (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

SBOL logo deletion
Dear Sphilbrick, I noticed your reverted my changes on the sbol page by removing the official sbol logo due to apparent copyright issues (Violations of copyright policy: http://sbolstandard.org/data/). My question how can we get our sbol logo on to the page? Sbol is a standards community that we started about 10 years ago and we got the logo made as part of a competition maybe 5 years ago. I don’t think we actually put any license on the use of the logo itself. Do you need my emails to prove that the logo was created by way of a competition or so we just need to put a usage license on the log web page at sbolstandard.org? I not sure what course of action to take so that we can use our logo. Rhodydog (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , In most cases, logos are not uploaded as free images, which requires getting permission from the copyright holder but as fair use images. The latter approach has some restrictions but they are not a problem for typical uses such as inclusion of a low resolution image in an info box.
 * If you can email me a file I can take care of uploading it.
 * I will note that it is standard to include the image in an info box and that article doesn't yet have one so it would be helpful if you could create the info box.
 * The alternative is to put a license on the webpage. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will note that it is standard to include the image in an info box and that article doesn't yet have one so it would be helpful if you could create the info box.
 * The alternative is to put a license on the webpage. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative is to put a license on the webpage. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we’ll put a license on the web page and the we can try emailing the logo to you. I don’t think I know the intricacies of Wikipedia copyright well enough to doit myself. Rhodydog (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you put a license on the web page, then feel free to restore it yourself. I know how to fill out the fair use paperwork, but not needed if you freely license it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Train articles created by User:Jjbm2011
Hi I been patrolling a large number of pages created by the above user. As there are no notability guidelines for trains I have based my reviewing on the fact that there are 2 or more sources. I tagged them as not having footnotes and sometimes no lead either. I saw that you left a message for this editor and I wondered if you could have a look and just let me know if you think I should tag them as maybe not meeting notability requirements. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , That didn't immediately ring a bell and now I see why. It was over three years ago when I dropped a note.
 * I see a number of subsequent entries identifying deleted drafts but I suspect those arise from the fact that onion ring and I moved a lot of the incomplete articles into draft space in the simply languished until six months went by.
 * There's a lot of energy and some attention to detail and it be nice to harness it. I suggested that they check in with the relevant wiki project but if that happened it didn't help.
 * In my opinion the ideal situation would be that someOther editor with interesting trains adopt this editor and help them out but I don't how to make that happen.
 * The most recent two articles they've worked on neither of which were started in draft space, have any references. I think we have to continue tagging and deleting contributions that don't meet our standards. I'll also note that the editor sent contributed to the talk page so if they cannot communicate there's not much we can do to help. It's too bad, because there is some potential there. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll continue to assume that the 2 sources cited confer notability and tag for problems. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sounds good. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent two articles they've worked on neither of which were started in draft space, have any references. I think we have to continue tagging and deleting contributions that don't meet our standards. I'll also note that the editor sent contributed to the talk page so if they cannot communicate there's not much we can do to help. It's too bad, because there is some potential there. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll continue to assume that the 2 sources cited confer notability and tag for problems. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sounds good. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sounds good. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Draft:Madara Uchiha
Sorry to hear that the material comes under copyright violation. But the source, from which I copied the information belongs to wikipedia. The source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto_characters#Madara_Uchiha

If you can, please check for reverse copy vio. Thanking you AbhiMukh97 Speak 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I responded on your talk page. Please provide the attribution, it is still needed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)