User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 107

Union Pacific
specifically, which part has copyright concerns? I've reinserted some of the stuff I removed earlier on pending discussion of reliable sources, but some of the things you've reverted doesn't make sense in the context of copyright. Please explain. I checked out the link you left in edit summary, www.classicstreamliners.com/ci-union-pacific.html and there are some parts of the article and that page that are identical. So, now I'm trying to determine if they copied from Wikipedia and claimed it as their own work or if someone on Wikipedia lifted stuff from there and pasted. Thank you Graywalls (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * never mind. In the page you said my edit was infringing on, it says on the foot notes they lifted it from Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't disbelieve you but I looked again and did not find those footnotes. Even if they did copy it from Wikipedia that doesn't mean it can simply be added to another Wikipedia article.. It must be properly attributed. I'll look into this in the morning S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * look harder. It's in small grey font. Do ctrl-F and search wiki. All the way at the very bottom "Text: wikipedia.org. Images: Public Domain; http://www.commons.wikimedia.org (unless otherwise specified) and 17 U.S. Code § 107 fair use. References: Lewis, Robert G. The Handbook of American Railroads. New York: Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation, 1951, 2nd Edition 1956." I've done some checking and investigated when the domain was registered, which says 2013. I checked history and there are some word-for-word matching contents that predates the domain registry, so there's a pretty good evidence here that the website lifted it from Wikipedia. Either way, I'm not the one who originally added the contents you're alleging is infringing. I removed some contents earlier from the same article, then added back, because, I'm currently checking with RSN over something else. So perhaps it was added prior to the implementation of detection bot, then when I removed something, and later changed mind, it might have triggered a copyright bot?  I don't understand why you also removed some of the contents I've added with different sources. You weren't very clear about which portions you find contentious and you reverted things with a very broad brush going far beyond. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do see the small notice suggesting the text came from Wikipedia. As I mentioned, had the addition of the material come from a different article within Wikipedia, we do have some rules on how that should be handled to preserve attribution. However, as I understand the situation, you or someone removes the material and then decided it could be restored to the article. That is acceptable, although a clear edit summary would have alerted me to look at the situation differently. You also expressed surprise that my reversion covered more than just the text being restored. that's because it is common practice among editors who work on copyright issues to do or rollback when we encounter (what we believe to be) a copyright concern. I think there are good reasons for this, which I can go into in more detail if you wish. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reason For Deletion
Why did u deleted the content that I added on hinduism in Pakistan. Minicoyamini (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , as explained in the edit summary :
 * Reverted good faith edits by Minicoyamini: Copyright issue re https://hinduexistence.org/2010/03/25/discrimination-against-scheduled-caste-hindus-continues-in-pakistan-low-caste-hindu-women-kids-being-sexploited-in-pakistan/
 * it appeared to be a copyright violation. Let me know if you think I was in error. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it appeared to be a copyright violation. Let me know if you think I was in error. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't added -https://hinduexistence.org/2010/03/25/discrimination-against-scheduled-caste-hindus-continues-in-pakistan-low-caste-hindu-women-kids-being-sexploited-in-pakistan/- this as a source or citation for the data's I added Minicoyamini (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not quite sure of following your point. For the record, we're discussing this article :Hinduism in Pakistan.
 * Your point literally says that you did not add the page I mentioned as a source. That's not an argument against the copyright concern.
 * My guess is that you are trying to say you didn't copy from the page I listed, you used  a different page which you used as a source. However, while we do want material added to an article to be supported by a reliable source, that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In general, the material added should be in your own words. (There are some exceptions for properly licensed material, and the material that can justifiably be included in quotes, but I don't think that applies here.)  Please note that making small changes to the words so that it is not a perfect copy paste does not get around copyright issues. Text that is not sufficiently reworded constitutes a wp:close paraphrase.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is that you are trying to say you didn't copy from the page I listed, you used  a different page which you used as a source. However, while we do want material added to an article to be supported by a reliable source, that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In general, the material added should be in your own words. (There are some exceptions for properly licensed material, and the material that can justifiably be included in quotes, but I don't think that applies here.)  Please note that making small changes to the words so that it is not a perfect copy paste does not get around copyright issues. Text that is not sufficiently reworded constitutes a wp:close paraphrase.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My guess is that you are trying to say you didn't copy from the page I listed, you used  a different page which you used as a source. However, while we do want material added to an article to be supported by a reliable source, that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In general, the material added should be in your own words. (There are some exceptions for properly licensed material, and the material that can justifiably be included in quotes, but I don't think that applies here.)  Please note that making small changes to the words so that it is not a perfect copy paste does not get around copyright issues. Text that is not sufficiently reworded constitutes a wp:close paraphrase.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg MSGJ

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ivanvector
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
 * The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
 * A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters
Why did you delete the content I added to Media Matters? I quoted a reputable source? J Hart 00:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained the removal in my edit summary which noted that the material was a copyright issue. It is good that you added a source – that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Unless the material is appropriately licensed, in general you should be writing the text in your own words. Let me know if you need more information.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Soft Robotics, Inc.
Hey, Sphilbrick. I was throwing up the content from the Soft Robotics About Page as a rough outline of the article I wanted to write. It was not my intention to publish the content as is. I believed I was clear to do so while an article is in Draft status. Can you please give me access to the content you reverted so I can pull it into my sandbox or offline?

Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That is not an acceptable practice. While a draft does not have to be in final form, it cannot ever, at any stage, include copyright material.
 * I can send you the material, but you need to enable your email option. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sphilbrick. My email has been enabled. Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sent. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sent. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Come Out with Pride
Do you mind revisiting Come Out with Pride? I'm tempted to submit a request for page protection. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not all that active with page protection, but it is my understanding that when there are issues attributable to a small number of individuals (in this case one), it is better to address with warnings then blocks rather than page protection. I just issued a final warning to the editor involved. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, makes sense, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, makes sense, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for the miscommunication. I am new to editing wikipedia pages and am still navigating through the site. I just reviewed your notifications and have posted a new edition to the Come Out with Pride page. Please let me know if this is sufficient from what I have gathered from your notes. Smandig

When I come across infringing contents in sources and external links, what do I do?
We crossed path before.. and reading your page, it seems like you're a copyright issue expert, so perhaps you can offer advise. When I come across infringing contents in references and external links such as unauthorized PDF scans of copyrighted material, I replace it with basic citation or non-infringing link, but after doing so, does something else need to be done so that infringing contents can't be restored back on? These are two examples: a PDF scan of copyrighted conference a PDF scan of copyrighted workshop manual

Graywalls (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me start with a response to the general issue. If you come across some material subject to copyright and remove it, the material should also be revision deleted by an admin. You can add a template to request that action as outlined at Revision_deletion.


 * I looked at your two specific examples, but the situation seems to be a little different and doesn't squarely fit into the usual RD1 situation. If I'm reading correctly, it wasn't so much that copyrighted text was removed from the article, but that a link to a scan of copyrighted material was used as a reference. As you know, while an editor cannot simply incorporate copyrighted material into an article, it is perfectly appropriate to provide a reference to copyrighted material. In fact, most references linked to copyrighted material. If I follow the situation correctly, someone acquired hard copies of some conference materials, wanted to use them as a reference and rather than track down the online version provided by the copyright holder, they scanned the document, and used a link to that scan. You are correct to replace the link with a link to the noninfringing link. If the material in question is not available online, conversion to the basic citation is appropriate. Now the question is, should we take some action to revision delete the link to the inappropriate scan? I think an argument can be made that revision deletion could be done, but I don't think that's common practice.


 * Let me try an analogy. Many new editors try adding links to YouTube videos. These are often, but not always unacceptable. If the YouTube video contains copyrighted information is not properly licensed, the link should be removed. I don't believe it is common practice to do an RD1 on those links. I do a fair percentage of all RD1 requests, and don't ever recall such a situation showing up in the list. I think this situation is analogous enough to your situation that it is not necessary to do an RD1 on the link to the scan. I'm pinging a resident copyright expert to see if she has a different view.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never done revision deletion in such cases either. However the revision deletion policy allows for revision deletion of material that violates our copyright policy, and according to WP:COPYLINK linking to works that violate someone else's copyright is against our copyright policy, so by this logic revision deletion of such edits would be within policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I failed to ping you; doing so now. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I was made aware of this discussion via the EMD F7 article; linking to scans of operator manuals is rather common in locomotive articles, and I don't see it as a copyright problem. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The contentious links in Special:Diff/926477340 also includes large a repository of numerous service manuals (which has apparently drawn the attention of Caterpillar Inc. legal department relating to intellectual property and/or copyright issues according to . Then the other link has a PDF of all the pages of an ASME conference, which is only available as snippets on Google Book suggesting non-public domain. Although the contents are not removed, I do notice that they've disabled robot crawling, possibly to thwart detection. On a somewhat related note, looking at this news article, https://www.pe.com/2014/05/30/smooth-ride-for-company-that-reproduces-car-manuals/, this company sells reproduction of out of print service manual for cars. Even if they're pre-1977, they pay the manufacturers royalty. If commercial vs non-commercial has any bearing, then it would imply that it wouldn't pass our Creative Commons licensing standard, so I do see it as an issue. Some of the equipment are still in use and the manuals are possibly still available to operators or professional restoration organizations through business-to-business channel. So, I don't see how links to a repository of numerous full length factory service manuals are any more acceptable than links to such scans for classic autos from numerous car related articles. The amount of possibly infringing materials on those websites are vast. Graywalls (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Unless the operator manuals are specifically licensed in a way they can be used in Wikipedia, this is a problem. What is the rationale for thinking it is not a problem? S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, we're talking about linking to an external resource, not hosting on Wikipedia itself. We don't require that sources be creative common-licensed. If the specific material in question is unambiguously a copyright infringement (and this has not been established, at all), it's presumably still acceptable as a source, we just can't link to it, hence my objection to removing the source altogether. If we're saying that it's nonpublic information, never published, and there's no legitimate source, then that might justify removal altogether, but I don't agree with that position. For one, I know that numerous GE/EMD operator manuals are stored at the Transportation Library at Northwestern University. If it's in a library, it's a legitimate source of information. Apologies for addressing multiple issues in sequence, but I think there's been some confusion. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , You are correct, I was thinking you were suggesting that incorporation of that material in a Wikipedia article was acceptable. However, as Diannaa noted above, even linking to it may be a problem.


 * The earlier discussion was focused on whether revision deletion of such links was appropriate, I believe the answer was it is not common practice but accepted. However, they didn't seem to be any doubt about whether such links were acceptable — they are not. The reference may still be needed, but that reference does not have to include an online link to material. I understand it may be frustrating to provide a reference to a relatively obscure document, not easily tracked down by an interested reader, when you know there happens to be an online scan of the material. I don't at the moment recall whether it is considered acceptable practice to include an explanatory note and a reference itself, but if not, one could always add a footnote explaining that many operator manuals can be found at such and such a location. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some editorial discretion to be made in grey area. Let's say you're citing a quote from a few seconds of an episode of a TV show. Linking to trimmed and secluded 30 second footage is different than writing a foot note and pointing to the time position of an episode that can be found at a link of html list that contains unauthorized copies of seasons after seasons of the show. The latter would be constructively using Wikipedia like a torrent tracker to point people to infringing resources that aren't visible to Google. Difficulty in finding isn't a fair use rationale to point to infringing sources.W It remains unclear if technical service manuals created prior to 1977 would fall under published or if they're corporate authorship for internal use that falls under 120 year copyright. https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain  What is clear now is that only a small fraction of contents on that site claims to have some sort of authorization and there are some full item scans that are newer than 1977. Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some editorial discretion to be made in grey area. Let's say you're citing a quote from a few seconds of an episode of a TV show. Linking to trimmed and secluded 30 second footage is different than writing a foot note and pointing to the time position of an episode that can be found at a link of html list that contains unauthorized copies of seasons after seasons of the show. The latter would be constructively using Wikipedia like a torrent tracker to point people to infringing resources that aren't visible to Google. Difficulty in finding isn't a fair use rationale to point to infringing sources.W It remains unclear if technical service manuals created prior to 1977 would fall under published or if they're corporate authorship for internal use that falls under 120 year copyright. https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain  What is clear now is that only a small fraction of contents on that site claims to have some sort of authorization and there are some full item scans that are newer than 1977. Graywalls (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

About Paola Bongelli's nationality
Hi Sphilbrick.

I see you made a change in Ding Ning indicating that Umpire Paola Bongelli is Austrian using ittf as reference. The thing is that that page shows the national association of the umpire and not the nationality. Bongelli works in the austrian association but she's Italian, we can see it here in the Italian association web page where it says "We learn from the Fitet Umpiring Commission that our International Umpire Paola Bongelli from Friday 17 January c.m. as per her request, for personal and logistical reasons, has passed to the Austrian Federation. Paola, one of the Italian umpires who has achieved the greatest international successes over the last few years, wishes for as many satisfactions with the new "shirt"."

What do you think is more appropiate to put? Bongelli's nationality or her national association?

King Regards. --SRuizR  19:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe that what happened is a reader contacted Wikimedia via OTRS, asking how to correct an error and providing the source for the correction. I reviewed it, thought it sounded plausible and made the change.
 * I'm a little unhappy with my edit summary, because I make it a practice to include a link to the ticket number when I take such an action and I see that I did not in this case. That's not terribly important, except if I had included the number I could easily check with the person that proposed that in asked them to weigh in.
 * I frankly haven't given much thought to the distinction you raise. I would hope that the community has given some thought to this issue and has some views but I don't know where such a discussion would have taken place.
 * One possible next step is to open the discussion on the article talk page to determine a consensus of editors. Perhaps one of the participants will have some knowledge of prior precedents.
 * I'll emphasize that I thought I was simply correcting an error, but it now feels like a more nuanced issue. I have absolutely no objection if you want to revert my change pending a more complete discussion, or you could simply open a discussion and take whatever action is dictated by consensus. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One possible next step is to open the discussion on the article talk page to determine a consensus of editors. Perhaps one of the participants will have some knowledge of prior precedents.
 * I'll emphasize that I thought I was simply correcting an error, but it now feels like a more nuanced issue. I have absolutely no objection if you want to revert my change pending a more complete discussion, or you could simply open a discussion and take whatever action is dictated by consensus. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll emphasize that I thought I was simply correcting an error, but it now feels like a more nuanced issue. I have absolutely no objection if you want to revert my change pending a more complete discussion, or you could simply open a discussion and take whatever action is dictated by consensus. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll emphasize that I thought I was simply correcting an error, but it now feels like a more nuanced issue. I have absolutely no objection if you want to revert my change pending a more complete discussion, or you could simply open a discussion and take whatever action is dictated by consensus. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 36, September – October 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref January 2020
 * #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Email
Did you get the email response I sent on the OTRS mailing list? For some reason I think my email client sent it specifically to you instead of to the entire list. Which is, obviously, not what I intended to do. I just wanted to make sure before I sent it properly and apologize in advanced for the duplicate message. --Majora (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I got it, I think it was part of the chain. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Searching subpages
I am trying to find all of the pages in my userspace and I happened to see that you've linked to me on one of your subpages. Being curious, I looked at your userpage. You do a huge amount of reading. Back to the topic of searching subpages: the search tool isn't showing me results when I search for subpages of User:Pine. Any idea how to do that, or is the search tool in error? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks. ↠Pine  ( ✉ )  19:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , When I want to see my sub pages, I click on a link "subpages" in the top right of the page just to the left of "preferences". However, I have a nagging concern that that won't appear for anyone and does for me because I installed some script years ago that I can't remember. I just tried it and I see that it invokes some special search. I replace my name with yours which produced: this. Does that seem to include everything? S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, that works. Do you know why this doesn't? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=subpageof%3AUser%3APine&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22subpageof%22%3A%22User%3APine%22%7D%7D&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns108=1&ns109=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns446=1&ns447=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1&ns2300=1&ns2301=1&ns2302=1&ns2303=1 ↠Pine   ( ✉ )  01:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't. On the surface, it seems like it should. Paging, who seems to know just about everything. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like are using the wrong namespaces. I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=&prefix=User%3APine%2F and it seems to be spitting out results just fine. As far as finding all your subpages, Special:PrefixIndex handles that magic. Hope that helps, ping me if not. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you sure that you included the correct link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=&prefix=User%3APine%2F gives me no search results, which isn't surprising because the search is for pages that are in NS0. ↠Pine   ( ✉ )  01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the base link; you have to actually type in the search term you want. It's using the prefix "User:Pine" so while it's technically searching in the / Main / Article space, it adds the User: prefix which puts it into the userspace. Primefac (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OTRS Training
Hi Sphilbrick - I wonder whether your offer of OTRS hand-holding is still open. Since we last spoke about it I've been given a mop, so might be of more use to the team with the additional tools. If you'd still be willing to do this, I should be able to find some time for it next month, once the school holidays have started (my last day is the 13th of December). I appreciate it's a busy time of year, so happy to postpone indefinitely until you have time. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  16:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It does. I have to leave for an appointment in minutes, but I'll try to follow up later this afternoon. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I should have some time on Sunday. I don't know your time zone, so not sure when would be convenient for you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm in the UK, and I believe you're in the US, so we've got a bit of a time difference to contend with. I'd probably find this easier in December, after school finishes, if that would work for you? Girth Summit  (blether)  10:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , ok S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging