User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 106

International Player Pathway
You've reverted three recent edits. I can see how the section "Athlete eligibility and application" may be regarded as plagiarism but not the others, so can you revert those please. Could you also suggest how to better present the athlete eligibility regulations; these are carefully worded by the source (which is the NFL) from whom they have been copied by the site you mention (http://dblcoverage.com/are-you-the-next-nfl-undiscovered-star/). I don't want to post incorrect or misleading information and I cannot imagine that Double Coverage will mind that Wikipedia is also presenting the same information from the NFL that they did as public information in their article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal Extent (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly the same information is available at the following sites ;
 * https://www.independent.co.uk%2Fsport%2Fus-sport%2Fnfl-draft-2017-undrafted-european-athletes-a7596096.html&usg=AOvVaw2xQsGtaCdk2t6K8sdX-7yC
 * https://www.americanfootballinternational.com%2Fwant-chance-play-nfl-nfl-undiscovered-2017-training-programme-launches%2F&usg=AOvVaw0zrx1zKGP_0TAMHIOwxlqW
 * https://www.skysports.com%2Fnfl%2Fnews%2F12040%2F10778480%2Fnfl-undiscovered-programme-returns&usg=AOvVaw2PyMLiUv3OfnYnDGb4YYxg
 *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractal Extent (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , It is a commonly accepted practice that when a copyright violation is detected in one of a sequence of edits by the same editor that a rollback is performed undoing all consecutive edits, rather than carefully excising only the material subject to copyright.
 * This surprises some editors, as they may understand that reversion of material subject to copyright should be done but not understanding why the other edits are also undone. However, it is sometimes the case that edits prior to the problematic edit might be removing material or otherwise preparing for the addition of the copyrighted material, and it is quite common that edits subsequent to the problematic edits are minor or possibly even substantive changes to the added material subject to copyright. While sometimes it is straightforward to identify exactly how to remove the material under copyright, sometimes it is tricky and a fair amount of work, and it is not reasonable to expect the editor removing the copyrighted material to do the research necessary to carefully excising only the copyrighted work.
 * However, it is challenging for the editor to fix it themselves if the materials have been revision deleted, so I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can re-add non-offending material yourself.
 * Regarding the fact that material subject to copyright can be found in many places — this is extremely well-known as many people adding content to the Internet are unaware of or on interested in the fact that copying of copyrighted information is inappropriate. I also understand that there are times that rewriting material in one's own words might not be appropriate if one is wishes to document the exact original source, such as an example where eligibility rules would best be pretrade by using the exact specified rules rather than a rewrite, but in such cases, if it's appropriate to include the material for encyclopedic reasons, it should be done with" or using block quotes and properly attributing to the source. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * However, it is challenging for the editor to fix it themselves if the materials have been revision deleted, so I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can re-add non-offending material yourself.
 * Regarding the fact that material subject to copyright can be found in many places — this is extremely well-known as many people adding content to the Internet are unaware of or on interested in the fact that copying of copyrighted information is inappropriate. I also understand that there are times that rewriting material in one's own words might not be appropriate if one is wishes to document the exact original source, such as an example where eligibility rules would best be pretrade by using the exact specified rules rather than a rewrite, but in such cases, if it's appropriate to include the material for encyclopedic reasons, it should be done with" or using block quotes and properly attributing to the source. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the fact that material subject to copyright can be found in many places — this is extremely well-known as many people adding content to the Internet are unaware of or on interested in the fact that copying of copyrighted information is inappropriate. I also understand that there are times that rewriting material in one's own words might not be appropriate if one is wishes to document the exact original source, such as an example where eligibility rules would best be pretrade by using the exact specified rules rather than a rewrite, but in such cases, if it's appropriate to include the material for encyclopedic reasons, it should be done with" or using block quotes and properly attributing to the source. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:MicroG for improvement, if interested
Maybe this time Draft:MicroG will happen. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Floquenbeam • Lectonar
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news
 * Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
 * The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous
 * A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Block log mixup
Re your comments here. There's an outstanding bug report for that at T199174. Yet to be triaged. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OTRS team membership
Hi Sphilbrick, I was granted OTRS team membership a few months ago, and I'm afraid that I haven't done anything useful with it. I volunteered with the best of intentions, but I confess to having been somewhat daunted by the interface and the amount of reading it was going to take me to get up to speed. I had hoped to find time over the summer to get my head into it, but to be honest I've been able to muster up far more enthusiasm to content creation recently, and getting into OTRS has gradually morphed from an interesting project I was looking forward to, into a task that I'm feeling guilty about putting off.

The summer almost being over now, and I can't realistically see that I'm going to have any time to devote to it in the near future, so I think I should regretfully ask for my rights to be revoked, with a sincere apology to all those who spent time looking into my application. Can you let me know what I need to do to make this happen? Thanks, and sorry again for having wasted people's time. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Before you give up, let's chat a bit.
 * I agree, thw interface is far short of ideal. I haven't pushed for change because once one finally learns that, it's still a little annoying but not terrible and I'm not looking forward to learning a new interface.
 * I've had some positive experience working with a new agent live, not necessarily in person but connected by phone. There are a few tricks to learning how to navigate the interface and they are easy to talk through but not that easy to write down.
 * Once you learn how to navigate, there is definitely a role for someone who has limited time. I do a survey every two weeks, and I can tell you that the majority of agents average fewer than one ticket a day. obviously, we'd be happy with agents that do a little bit more than that, but if we had 100 agents who handle two tickets a week, we could probably keep our backlog down to a reasonable level.
 * As additional good news, some tickets are trickier than others, but if you aren't going to be particularly active, you can skip over ones that look complicated, and potentially find a niche of a type of ticket you like to handle.
 * Obviously, there would be some time commitment to getting up to speed, but I think an hour or two in one or two sessions would do it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, that's a very kind offer - I had thought about reaching out to someone to ask about some one-to-one training, but to be honest I was a bit embarrassed, assuming that it was just me being thick! I'm gearing up for the new school term now, but I might be able to put some time aside to do this, and if you were able to bat some easy cases my way for me to begin with it would assuage one of the worries I had about getting into something I didn't really understand and having to ask someone else to mop up after me. Do you mind if I think it over for a bit and get back to you? Thanks again. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again - I think I'd like to take you up on this offer. I'm not sure when you had in mind - I'm assuming that you're in Connecticut (from the userbox on your Talk Page) - I'm in the UK, but should have some time free tonight or tomorrow night, if that would work for you? After that things are likely to get a bit hectic for me for a couple of weeks, so might have to kick this into the longer grass, but could come back to you when I have more time. Let me know, and thanks again. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow is my wedding anniversary, plus I have an appointment to go cut some trees, and I have a Board meeting to prepare for and attend, so tomorrow won't work. I'll come back with another option soon. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your anniversary! Sounds like you're pretty busy, quite understand that a long call at short notice isn't the easiest thing to squeeze in - if you want to suggest some dates/times, I'll see whether I can fit it in. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again Sphilbrick - I've had a thought about how I could dip my toe into OTRS finally. I've been in correspondence via e-mail with someone called Phyllis Mitchell at Walkers Shortbread about them donating some photographs that we could use to illustrate Aberlour House (building). I gave her the OTRS e-mail address and the form of words to use to confirm that they are licensing us to use them; she tells me that she has done this now. Can you confirm whether we've received such an e-mail and, if so, give me some guidance for what I need to do in order to get the photographs onto Commons with the appropriate licensing? I should be able to make a bit of time to look at this at the weekend. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  06:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, that's a very kind offer - I had thought about reaching out to someone to ask about some one-to-one training, but to be honest I was a bit embarrassed, assuming that it was just me being thick! I'm gearing up for the new school term now, but I might be able to put some time aside to do this, and if you were able to bat some easy cases my way for me to begin with it would assuage one of the worries I had about getting into something I didn't really understand and having to ask someone else to mop up after me. Do you mind if I think it over for a bit and get back to you? Thanks again. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again - I think I'd like to take you up on this offer. I'm not sure when you had in mind - I'm assuming that you're in Connecticut (from the userbox on your Talk Page) - I'm in the UK, but should have some time free tonight or tomorrow night, if that would work for you? After that things are likely to get a bit hectic for me for a couple of weeks, so might have to kick this into the longer grass, but could come back to you when I have more time. Let me know, and thanks again. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow is my wedding anniversary, plus I have an appointment to go cut some trees, and I have a Board meeting to prepare for and attend, so tomorrow won't work. I'll come back with another option soon. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your anniversary! Sounds like you're pretty busy, quite understand that a long call at short notice isn't the easiest thing to squeeze in - if you want to suggest some dates/times, I'll see whether I can fit it in. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  17:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again Sphilbrick - I've had a thought about how I could dip my toe into OTRS finally. I've been in correspondence via e-mail with someone called Phyllis Mitchell at Walkers Shortbread about them donating some photographs that we could use to illustrate Aberlour House (building). I gave her the OTRS e-mail address and the form of words to use to confirm that they are licensing us to use them; she tells me that she has done this now. Can you confirm whether we've received such an e-mail and, if so, give me some guidance for what I need to do in order to get the photographs onto Commons with the appropriate licensing? I should be able to make a bit of time to look at this at the weekend. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  06:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please support the Sustainability Initiative!
Hi Sphilbrick, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Coronation of Queen Victoria - copied text
I am reviewing this article. If you could help, I'd be grateful. I would just like to know why the section in the article that I believed it was wrong to copy (see Coronation of Queen Victoria) is OK to be reinstated, according to another editor, who has recommended I stop reviewing the article. I thought the case was pretty clear cut, but I am willing to accept the advice of an expert. Everything I have done with regards to the article was done in good faith. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Rejection for Northpole article edits
Dear sir, As someone that has a singular focus, adding USS Submarine surfacing references to the North_Pole article I was surprised by your edit of my changes back in April. As I only visit the page as new articles are released by the US Navy each year, I don't frequent the page, or logon to Wikipedia frequently.

Because I visited the North Pole in 1987 on the USS Billfish (SSN 676) I am interested in documenting these visits on the North Pole page.

Could you guide me as to how to reference the US Artic Submarine Article references?

Needless to say, I don't understand why a russian naval article, would have copyright infringement with articles on US Artic operations.

Thanks, Tom Canter Tcanter (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Major Lenox Riley Lohr
I'd like to restore Draft:Major Lenox Riley Lohr. It was abandoned by the original editor and deleted by you per G13 back in 2016. I was planning to write an article about Lohr—, he is red linked on several pages, including one I just added (he co-wrote a paper on cryptography with William F. Friedman). Then I found this deleted bio, which is a good start. It needs refs added and some toning down, which I plan to do. Any objections?--agr (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of revisions to "Model-based testing" article
Sorry, I don't understand why you removed my revision to the Model-based testing article. Specifically, the changes with explanation 'Restore "Input space modelling" section, adding references to multiple supporting tools'. I think you are claiming a copyright violation, but I don't see how. The deletion log entry refers to http://acva2010.cs.drexel.edu/omeka/items/show/30186. But this is merely some kind of link back to the same Wikipedia article. Exactly whose copyright is being violated here?

It seems that this removal is unjustified, in which case I ask that you restore it.

CornutumProject (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Our copyright detection software often picks up a false positive when an editor involves copying material from another Wikipedia article.
 * Reviewers of those reports always check to see if the edit summary identifies that it is a copy within Wikipedia. The best practices are outlined here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia
 * If that edit summary is not present, a reviewer may incorrectly conclude that it was a copyright violation and revert it. Feel free to redo the edit but make sure to follow the guideline. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia
 * If that edit summary is not present, a reviewer may incorrectly conclude that it was a copyright violation and revert it. Feel free to redo the edit but make sure to follow the guideline. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If that edit summary is not present, a reviewer may incorrectly conclude that it was a copyright violation and revert it. Feel free to redo the edit but make sure to follow the guideline. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I will redo as you suggest. But I'm still mystified about why this happened or how to prevent it. My revision is totally original, not copied from elsewhere in Wikipedia. I will note that this is a revision that I was resubmitted (with changes) after it had been reverted away by a different editor. Only in that weird sense could it be construed as a "copy from within". But then how am I to avoid that if I redo? Just change a few words? CornutumProject (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , It will take some time to look into it, which I'm happy to do, but let's wait until you are successfully unblocked. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Draft:Flying car
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Draft:Flying car. I do not think that Draft:Flying car fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because A-series speedy deletion criteria do not apply to drafts. I request that you consider not re-tagging Draft:Flying car for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Under what circumstances would copying and pasting an existing article into draft space be acceptable?
 * It is technically a copyright violation. Those of us who actively worked in copyright issues would not typically remove material copied from another Wikipedia article is a copyright violation, and would warn the editor to comply with Copying within Wikipedia, but that's not remotely applicable here.
 * I know that some new editors is appropriate to copy an existing article as a type of template then make changes to it, but that's not generally good advice, and if done should never be done in Wikipedia because of attribution problems.
 * That some of the eight criteria such as A7 or A9 should not be used in draft space because the light in progress, but that's not remotely applicable here.
 * While I see the statement that says the a criteria only apply to main space we ought to revisit that issue. (I do understand this is not the forum to revisit that issue.)
 * Are you suggesting that this should be AfD'd? that sounds like a lot of bureaucracy for what's probably just a blunder by an unregistered editor. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I am suggesting that the only thing needed is to add a proper attribution statement, which will deal with the copyright issue, and that there is no need to delete this at all. If you really think it should be deleted, MfD is the way to go, but I would expect to oppose. It is not at all uncommon to copy an article to draft space to work on a major revision. Yes, that can cause attribution problems, and is not usually the best idea, but I ahve seen experienced editors do it a number of times, and it is not grounds for deletion, certainly not for speedy deletion. Such a copy cna also be used as a template for a new article, and that is also not grounds for deletion, even if not the best practice. I will add the attribution note. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, but this sounds like bureaucracy run amok. I do grant that there are situations where editors conclude that a major rewrite of an article is appropriate, and decide to do it in a new location rather than individual edits to the existing main space article. I've been involved in such rewrites. While I haven't reviewed every such situation, I guarantee that they typically involve established editors, substantial related discussion on the relevant article talk pages, and are typically done in a personal editor's sandbox or in a sub page of the talk page. Using draft space for such a rewrite sounds like a bad idea. Moreover, there is virtually zero chance that an unregistered editor with no prior edits has decided to do a rewrite of flying car. Adding an attribution note simply forestalls the need to remove this blunder. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My reasons are not, or not primarily bureaucratic. Note that an unregistered editor may be an experienced editor editing not-logged-in -- I edited that way for most of a year at one point overe quite a few different IPs. But more importantly, speedy deletion is supposed to be only for clear-cut cases. As there are plausible valid if not optimal reasons for creating a copy of an existing article, it is not a good case for speedy deletion. I would point to User:Signimu/Fad diet as a recent example. Yes it was in user space rather than draft space, but it might well have been in draft space, and it does seem to have started as a copy and been modified in place.
 * I do think that, in accord with Process is Important the speedy criteria should be applied strictly and narrowly. If a page does not clearly fit a criterion, I will not delete under it. The criteria page says in its header:
 * I adhere strictly to that principle, and think others should also. An Mfd discussiuon allows community input, but is not usually overly complex or onerous, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you are taking the time to make a case. While I don't find the case persuasive, I accept that you didn't make a mistake. I will mention in passing that I was a bit irked to receive what felt like a templated response. However, there is so much to do — I won't spend any more time on this issue. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well editors can and do disagree on Wikipedia policy and practice. You could always propose at WT:CD mthat the A-series CSDs apply to drafts, or that somne of them should. My memory is there was such a proposal for a few of them not too long ago, and it did not get consensus. As for a templated response, in a sense it was. It used Speedy-Warn, which I created years ago when i found myself typing the same phrases in manual notifications on declined speedy deletions over and over. But the "reason" is always provided individually, and I would rather do this than not notify editors who tagged in good faith. Anytime I post such a notice and the editor responds, I will answer explaining why I acted as I did. Once in a while someone convinces me that I made an error. But then I still host User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I should probably move that back to project space. Thanks for your comments and your many many edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, but this sounds like bureaucracy run amok. I do grant that there are situations where editors conclude that a major rewrite of an article is appropriate, and decide to do it in a new location rather than individual edits to the existing main space article. I've been involved in such rewrites. While I haven't reviewed every such situation, I guarantee that they typically involve established editors, substantial related discussion on the relevant article talk pages, and are typically done in a personal editor's sandbox or in a sub page of the talk page. Using draft space for such a rewrite sounds like a bad idea. Moreover, there is virtually zero chance that an unregistered editor with no prior edits has decided to do a rewrite of flying car. Adding an attribution note simply forestalls the need to remove this blunder. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My reasons are not, or not primarily bureaucratic. Note that an unregistered editor may be an experienced editor editing not-logged-in -- I edited that way for most of a year at one point overe quite a few different IPs. But more importantly, speedy deletion is supposed to be only for clear-cut cases. As there are plausible valid if not optimal reasons for creating a copy of an existing article, it is not a good case for speedy deletion. I would point to User:Signimu/Fad diet as a recent example. Yes it was in user space rather than draft space, but it might well have been in draft space, and it does seem to have started as a copy and been modified in place.
 * I do think that, in accord with Process is Important the speedy criteria should be applied strictly and narrowly. If a page does not clearly fit a criterion, I will not delete under it. The criteria page says in its header:
 * I adhere strictly to that principle, and think others should also. An Mfd discussiuon allows community input, but is not usually overly complex or onerous, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that you are taking the time to make a case. While I don't find the case persuasive, I accept that you didn't make a mistake. I will mention in passing that I was a bit irked to receive what felt like a templated response. However, there is so much to do — I won't spend any more time on this issue. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well editors can and do disagree on Wikipedia policy and practice. You could always propose at WT:CD mthat the A-series CSDs apply to drafts, or that somne of them should. My memory is there was such a proposal for a few of them not too long ago, and it did not get consensus. As for a templated response, in a sense it was. It used Speedy-Warn, which I created years ago when i found myself typing the same phrases in manual notifications on declined speedy deletions over and over. But the "reason" is always provided individually, and I would rather do this than not notify editors who tagged in good faith. Anytime I post such a notice and the editor responds, I will answer explaining why I acted as I did. Once in a while someone convinces me that I made an error. But then I still host User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I should probably move that back to project space. Thanks for your comments and your many many edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well editors can and do disagree on Wikipedia policy and practice. You could always propose at WT:CD mthat the A-series CSDs apply to drafts, or that somne of them should. My memory is there was such a proposal for a few of them not too long ago, and it did not get consensus. As for a templated response, in a sense it was. It used Speedy-Warn, which I created years ago when i found myself typing the same phrases in manual notifications on declined speedy deletions over and over. But the "reason" is always provided individually, and I would rather do this than not notify editors who tagged in good faith. Anytime I post such a notice and the editor responds, I will answer explaining why I acted as I did. Once in a while someone convinces me that I made an error. But then I still host User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. I should probably move that back to project space. Thanks for your comments and your many many edits. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Pi Sigma
Not doubting the copyright vio. But is there anyway to restore the list of members to the five rather than the reverted 1. At least two (I think the one that is there and the University President were referencable.Naraht (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not fully following your point. If you would like a copy of the deleted material I can email it to you. Otherwise, can you clarify your request? S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not the entire thing, just the list of notable alumni section. Not sure that needs to be emailed or simply restored or placed in one of my sandboxes.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I emailed the list to you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanx. Not sure a list like that can be a copyvio problem, but I'll see if I can ref and add them back.Naraht (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , A pure list is typically not a copyright violation, but when a single edit includes a mixture of copyright problems and non-problems, we typically rollback the whole edit — in fact we typically rollback all edits by the editor. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you have a ref it should be straightforward to add that information back. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. I should have what qualifies back soon.Naraht (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mole Day!
 Happy Mole Day 6.022x1023  Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.


 * What is this?
 * Mole Day is an unofficial holiday celebrated among chemists, chemistry students and chemistry enthusiasts on October 23, between 6:02 a.m. and 6:02 p.m. This date is derived from the Avogadro number, which is approximately 6.022×1023, and the day is named after scientist Amedeo Avogadro.


 * What you can do!


 * Participate in our and our sister WikiProjects
 * Expand articles listed here
 * Improve science articles
 * Sign the guestbook or place User WikiProject Science on your user page.
 * Add this page to your watchlist to see what's occurring here


 * Cool!


 * Similar events


 * Pi day
 * DNA day
 * Evolution Day
 * Yuri's Night
 * Square Root Day


 * See also


 * Observances about science
 * Observances in October

- Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe/Unsubscribe -

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject Science and its related projects. Wikiproject Science

Wikiproject Chemistry

Wikiproject Physics

WikiProject History of Science Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Kleinfelder Page - Good Faith Edit
Hi, I made edits to the Kleinfelder page [] on October 18th. On the 19th it was reverted back...history says Good Faith copyright issue with historical timeline. I'm hoping to fix this issue so the edits I made on October 18th will go back to being published. I read through the Good Faith instructions but I still don't think I understand what I need to do. For the timeline information that I added, do I just need to include a reference to Kleinfelder's timeline on the company's website? Any guidance you can provide is appreciated! MKelly KLF (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

URGENT
user:49.149.203.100 just made a death threat against me. I already reported her to WP:EMERGENCY. CLCStudent (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure why you are contacting me. However, had that been you only contact, I would have advised reporting to Emergency, which is the right place. I am sorry to hear that it happened, but I think the staff that monitors those reports tend to act quickly and responsibly. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It says to also contact an admin. CLCStudent (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's embarrassing, I didn't know that aspect of the process.
 * I see that the IP address has been blocked. I don't know whether that block arose from your report (my guess is no).
 * I do see that the edit in question was still visible. I did a revision deletion, which means it is now only visible to administrators.
 * I think that's why the advice is to privately contract an administrator to take some steps fairly quickly. I don't have the authority to interact with outside parties so if that needs to be done, that will be done by the staff. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do see that the edit in question was still visible. I did a revision deletion, which means it is now only visible to administrators.
 * I think that's why the advice is to privately contract an administrator to take some steps fairly quickly. I don't have the authority to interact with outside parties so if that needs to be done, that will be done by the staff. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's why the advice is to privately contract an administrator to take some steps fairly quickly. I don't have the authority to interact with outside parties so if that needs to be done, that will be done by the staff. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)