User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 110

Copyvio help
Sphilbrick, could you help with this? https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tourettes-syndrome/ has lifted two sentences from Tourette syndrome, going back at least to 2012. The text has been in our article since at least 2006: A supportive environment and family generally gives those with Tourette's the skills to manage the disorder. People with Tourette's may learn to camouflage socially inappropriate tics or to channel the energy of their tics into a functional endeavor. I called the number on their website and got nowhere. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I got a form from them, but have no intention of personally engaging with them:
 * https://www.uslegalforms.com/dmca/ Please mail it to: U.S. Legal Forms, P.O. Box 321398, Jackson, MS 39232
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just got home I will look into it shortly. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, the "please mail it to" words came from them; I wasn't asking you to do that, just not sure who does. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , I'm starting my own investigation so I can become comfortable I know what's going on. While I need to do a little more, it appears the current wording in the Wikipedia article developed organically (with you as a principal contributor) which is one of the strong signs that we didn't lift it from someone else.
 * I see that you documented that it was on their site as early as 2012, but that of course, doesn't preclude the possibility that they had the wording earlier. I'm assuming you didn't take any further steps to confirm when their wording first appeared.
 * I looked briefly at the DMCA Notice. I'm not thrilled about jumping to that step. I prefer to have a collegial discussion with them, explaining why we think they borrowed from Wikipedia and seeing how they react. This type of form seems like the one you would file after such a discussion that went nowhere. I see you tried to contact them, I may try as well. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would like to coordinate with legal. My vague recollection is that the copyright is owned by the editors, not the Foundation, so they may decline to take this on, but I think it's polite to give them a heads up if this is pursued. Is there any reason you think that should not be done? S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's not worth it for two sentences, but it shows up on Earwig, which bothers me. I can't make Wikiblame work; are you able to show me when that text first appeared, and who added it?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, to your second question, but give me some time, and I'll put something together. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's not worth it for two sentences, but it shows up on Earwig, which bothers me. I can't make Wikiblame work; are you able to show me when that text first appeared, and who added it?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, to your second question, but give me some time, and I'll put something together. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what WikiDoc is, and why they can do this? They have lifted huge portions of TS, and then added on inaccurate information. That's worse than the above. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like they imported this revision from December 2007 (which, of course, they are allowed to do) and then did a bit of editing in 2008 and a bit in 2014. About wikidoc. We have a bit on them: List_of_medical_wikis which gives their Alexa ranking as 	390,674 which I expect means they get about 4 visits a month from genuine visitors and according to Alexa most of their visitors are interested in caprini score (we don't have an article on that), cori cycle and foreskin coverage index (I daren't look).  I wouldn't stress about it. (Sorry for the page invasion, Sphilbrick).  Yomangani talk 00:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But what is really irritating is that it looks like they create a SandyGeorgia account, to make it look like I edit there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess that's their way of giving attribution. It is probably lucky to get a view a week and about 0.0% (rounded) of those will be checking the history. Plus, if you do click on your name it says "User account "SandyGeorgia" is not registered" Yomangani talk 00:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They are jerks. That's all :) :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm putting something together, it can be found here: User:Sphilbrick/TS_copyright_issue (I also mirrored here)

The last entry, at present, item number five, is the current version of the article (used a permanent link in case things change). The text column includes the relevant to sentences.

The next-to-last entry, at present, item number four, is the version of the article identified by you SandyGeorgia The text at that point is similar to but not exactly identical to the current version.

I then started working backwards in time, picking a keyword in the sentences, and searching for the edit in which that word first appeared.

I conclude a couple things so far:
 * SandyGeorgia played a role in the development of the two sentences.
 * Other editors at least IP editors, were involved in earlier versions of these two sentences
 * The current phrasing appears to have developed organically — in other words it didn't all appear at one time which would be the case if Wikipedia editors had copied it from another source -- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So, what next? When I called the phone number, I got a person who couldn't do anything and couldn't direct me anywhere, and sent me the form.  I suppose two sentences is not worth worrying about.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , One thing that's next is me getting my mind right. In partial defense, I've been traveling all day, and I'm now struggling to catch up with email, but I wanted to look into this as soon as I could. When I first read it, I thought you were suggesting that some official organization associated with TS picked up words from Wikipedia, which I was finding it hard to comprehend. That's not your fault, that's mine, but it just sunk in that it is some legal organization. That's at least plausible that the too lazy to craft their own wording or get permission from an official organization for wording and instead decided to borrow from Wikipedia. I suspect it happens a lot.
 * I'm not yet ready to let it go. However, I'll have to wait till Monday, normal working hours to attempt to call them myself and see what happens. I will do that and let you know. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to worry; I don't want you to knock yourself out over two sentences. I'm glad to just have a record that it wasn't us :) :)  Of course, it is bothersome that people pretending to be some sort of "legal" something would do this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I added some documentation to the article talk page: Talk:Tourette_syndrome. I suspect that pursuing this will be challenging; you want to do so and want some help I will help. However, I just signed on to help with the Dr. Blofeld CCI, which means we have to examine every one of his 606,000 edits for copyright problems. That's going to take a big chunk of my time. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for that; I think as long as it is documented, we can not bother with pursuing a problem of two sentences. I may look through the legal website to see if there is more of same, in which case it might be worth pursuing, and I'll let you know. (I tried to get folks over at WT:FAC to help with Blofeld, but my efforts were futile.) Thanks again for all your effort! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for that; I think as long as it is documented, we can not bother with pursuing a problem of two sentences. I may look through the legal website to see if there is more of same, in which case it might be worth pursuing, and I'll let you know. (I tried to get folks over at WT:FAC to help with Blofeld, but my efforts were futile.) Thanks again for all your effort! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

supposed academic sources
See this piece in Wired on this subject of so called academic RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , very interesting, thanks. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

ygm
GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Handled, I think S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

World Migration Report
Hi Sphilbrick,

I would just like to ask why you removed the Chapter section from the World Migration Report page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Migration_Report)?

The information was sourced (albeit in a subsequent edit that followed). I also work in the team that produced the report and so would hope copyright is not the issue.

Would you also be able to let me know what I have to change in order for my post to remain on the page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOMbb (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , We do require sourcing, but sourcing information does not cure the copyright violation. The source material clearly states "all rights reserved…".
 * If the organization would like to provide a free license for the material, there is more information about how to do so here: Donating_copyrighted_materials.
 * Please note that the copyright appears to be held by the organization, not the authors of the text, so the licensing agreement must come from the organization. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that the copyright appears to be held by the organization, not the authors of the text, so the licensing agreement must come from the organization. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that the copyright appears to be held by the organization, not the authors of the text, so the licensing agreement must come from the organization. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick,

I've re-added the Chapter section, but have adapted it into my own words so as to avoid copyright issues. Please let me know if there are any changes you would like me to make.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOMbb (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for doing that. I don't see it at Copy Patrol, so I assume it is fine. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Dennis Brown
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

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

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Partial blocks.
 * The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news
 * Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating.  There is currently one template: uw-pblock.
 * When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title.

Arbitration
 * Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeshiva revert
Hi Sphilbrick. Please allow me to see the reverted text Yeshiva, so that I can substitute the Britannica references with others. (I really don't feel like rewriting all that material...) [My apologies for initially writing this message on your user page.] Thanks Fintor (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I emailed all the intervening edit text to you S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks 😀 - appreciate it.

Zowe copyright issue with source you used
Hi Phil, Ref article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Mainframe_Project

The source you referred to uses the same exact source I referred to when editing the article. http://www.neodbug.org/newsletters/201909newsletter.pdf you'll see on this newsletter: "From the website zowe.org comes" this definition... The same definition I used.

Please revert if possible or lmk if there are any other issues.

Atdonner (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The exact source isn't really the issue, Unless one happens to be subject to copyright and the other has an acceptable license. However this site Very clearly is marked as full copyright. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. So is the information I added to that article, despite referencing zowe.org, infringing on a copyright issue? Is there anything else I need to consider if I'm trying to update this specific article?

Thank you. Atdonner (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed several instances recently where editors seem to think that using material from a copyrighted site is okay if it is referenced. That's not the case. Whenever you add something to the article that comes from one of the site, you should reference it, but you should also write it in your own words in most cases. Exceptions include brief quotes, and material that is appropriately licensed, although even then, the text might not be written in an encyclopedic tone.
 * Asking what else you need to consider is a very broad subject. This link will touch on other issues Help:Your first article (I understand you aren't starting a new article from scratch but it does include some useful advice.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking what else you need to consider is a very broad subject. This link will touch on other issues Help:Your first article (I understand you aren't starting a new article from scratch but it does include some useful advice.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking what else you need to consider is a very broad subject. This link will touch on other issues Help:Your first article (I understand you aren't starting a new article from scratch but it does include some useful advice.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks Phil. 129.41.87.1 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Havana Plan Piloto
Hello Sphilbrick, you reverted much work on the page citing a Copyright issue re: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ciam-discourse-urbanism-1928-1960, I read your: "Copy Within Wikipedia If you added material to an article which came from an existing article in Wikipedia, it is highly likely that this will be flagged as a potential copyright violation in our CopyPatrol software." and I thought I coped correctly (see page's Talk Page "Copy_5" documenting ovA_165443 (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC), so, I am at a loss understanding why you reverted much of the work on the page in reference to 1-MIT press, and 2-Copying within Wikipedia; can you please explain so I don't make similar mistake again, thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have a meeting starting in two minutes which will last about an hour. I will look at it as soon as the meeting is over S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about the delay, my meeting just ended. I ended my reversion. Please note that you made in edit after my reversion which will thereby be lost, but I trust you can figure out whether it needs to be redone or not. More in a subsequent post. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I now see that you added a note to the talk page explaining that the material was copied. That's great, but it is not my usual practice to look at the talk page when I am reviewing a potential copyright issue. While you might make an argument that I should check the talk page, I just looked at my history and I have addressed over 17,000 potential copyright issues, and I think this is the first time that there has been an explanation on the talk page and not in the edit summary. if you follow the best practices as outlined at Copying within Wikipedia, you will include mention in the edit summary that you are copying within Wikipedia. It may be that the note on the talk page adequately covers the requirement for attribution, but as I mentioned, it is not my practice to look at the talk page when reviewing issues flagged by Copy Patrol. I do make it a practice to look at the edit summary, so had been mentioned in the edit summary I would've marked it as "no action needed" and moved on. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sphilbrick, they are all in the talk page AND in the edit summary: See curprev 22:53, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 59,731 bytes +1,603‎ →‎References: copied content from Athens Charter; see that page's history for attribution undo and  21:22, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 58,314 bytes +1,204‎ →‎CIAM: copied content from GATEPAC; see that page's history for attribution and 20:48, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 57,015 bytes +530‎ →‎CIAM: copied content from Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne; see that page's history for attribution. 20:01, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 56,467 bytes +2,486‎ →‎Functional city: copied content from Athens Charter; see that page's history for attribution undo. 14:13, January 24, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 65,024 bytes +1,706‎ →‎Functional city: copied content from Ville Radieuse; see that page's history for attribution. 18:09, January 22, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 63,327 bytes +878‎ →‎Functional city: copied content from Athens Charter; see that page's history for attribution.  23:42, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 60,787 bytes +320‎ →‎Bibliography: copied content from Josep Lluís Sert; see that page's history for attribution. 23:38, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 60,566 bytes +636‎ →‎Corruption: copied content from Fulgencio Batista; see that page's history for attribution. 22:53, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 59,731 bytes +1,603‎ →‎References: copied content from Athens Charter; see that page's history for attribution,  21:46, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 58,147 bytes +12‎ →‎The Athens charter: copied content from Berthold Lubetkin; see that page's history for attribution. 21:42, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ m 58,135 bytes +33‎ →‎The Athens charter: copied content from Brasília; see that page's history for attribution. There may be others...Cheers! ovA_165443 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Here is the edit that triggered Copy Patrol Link to edit.
 * The edit summary is:
 * (??CIAM)
 * I don't see any indication in that edit identifying it as an acceptable copy within Wikipedia S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have looked further back in the history and I do see that you have used best practices identifying copy within in many cases and for that I thank you, if for no other reason than such edits trigger Copy Patrol. But the specific edit in question doesn't appear to have that edit summary. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought I showed CIAM above: 20:48, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 57,015 bytes +530‎ →‎CIAM: copied content from Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne; see that page's history for attribution. Well, sorry if I did something wrong, than you. ovA_165443 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please check for yourself, but I see:
 * (→‎CIAM)
 * and nothing else. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it is shownn here: 20:48, January 21, 2020‎ Osvaldo valdes 165443 talk contribs‎ 57,015 bytes +530‎ →‎CIAM: copied content from Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne; see that page's history for attribution. CIAM does not exist, the name of the page is: Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne. How should it have been done? ovA_165443 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, where do you see that text? S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Now I'm very puzzled, on two fronts. I don't see an edit with this timestamp:
 * 20:48, January 21, 2020
 * On the article in question, or anywhere made by you.
 * My second question is why you talking about a 21 January edit when I have identified that the problem occurred on 4 February? S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are confusing me. Let's see. The copy of CIAM occured on January 21, 2020, isn't this the issue, that you did not see a copy content tag? "I don't see an edit with this timestamp: 20:48, January 21, 2020" Ok, this one I don't understand, are we talking about Havana Plan Piloto, the history ? There are 30 edits on 2/04, I still don't understand the problem, so sorry!!! I will be back in couple of hours! ovA_165443 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My second question is why you talking about a 21 January edit when I have identified that the problem occurred on 4 February? S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are confusing me. Let's see. The copy of CIAM occured on January 21, 2020, isn't this the issue, that you did not see a copy content tag? "I don't see an edit with this timestamp: 20:48, January 21, 2020" Ok, this one I don't understand, are we talking about Havana Plan Piloto, the history ? There are 30 edits on 2/04, I still don't understand the problem, so sorry!!! I will be back in couple of hours! ovA_165443 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are confusing me. Let's see. The copy of CIAM occured on January 21, 2020, isn't this the issue, that you did not see a copy content tag? "I don't see an edit with this timestamp: 20:48, January 21, 2020" Ok, this one I don't understand, are we talking about Havana Plan Piloto, the history ? There are 30 edits on 2/04, I still don't understand the problem, so sorry!!! I will be back in couple of hours! ovA_165443 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is very confusing and I don't know why.

Let's try small steps:

Can you click on this edit?

Do you see that?: Please let me know if you disagree with any of those observations. S Philbrick (Talk)  20:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is an edit by you
 * 2) It has a timestamp of Revision as of 04:16, 4 February 2020
 * 3) It includes some text starting with "The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 1928-1960..."
 * 4) (As an aside, I now see that this text  is part of a footnote not the main body of text but I don't think that changes anything)
 * 5) The edit summary reads "(→‎CIAM)   (change visibility)"

Yes, I agree, that however is a note further explaining what CIAM is; the actual copy of CIAM was made and attributed on Jan 21. See? ovA_165443 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , It may be a note explaining what CIAM is, but it is a long passage of text – too long to be exempt from copyright issues. Do you agree there's nothing in that edit that explains that the text added in the edit is a copy from another Wikipedia article? That's the problem. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not look at the 21 January edit. I believe you that the edit on that date included the copy of some text and properly attributed it, but that's not relevant to this discussion. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but I don’t understand what the problem is!? Can you be explicit. ovA_165443 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The problem is not a missing reference. it's a missing edit summary explaining that the 4 February edit was a copy of mateiral frpm another Wikipedia article. If you look in Copying_within_Wikipedia, you will see discussion of how to do a dummy edit to provide that attribution after the fact (because it's not possible to edit the edit summary.) If you don't see how to do this, let me know and I'll do it for you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, In a few hours I can provide a reference, not at my computer now, ok! ovA_165443 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * that note did not come from Wikipedia but from a book on CIAM and that's why I got confused; what I am going to do so everything is clean is take off the note altogether and reinserted with a reference and an attribution in the edit summary. ovA_165443 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't the one who said it came from Wikipedia, that was you. I said the text seem to come from
 * this source which it does. Sometimes there is a false positive when the material at the source also matches material in a Wikipedia page, which is why we got into that discussion this no longer appears to be the case.
 * Please remove it, and when you are done I will do a revision deletion to remove the copyright violation. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I already removed it. ovA_165443 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I have applied the RD1 S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I have applied the RD1 S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Cassius Dio, Helius (freedman), copyright issue
Hello Sphilbrick

I created the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helius_(freedman)

You reverted excerpts from the Roman writer Cassius Dio due to alleged copyright issue. All works by Cassius Dio is public domain. Furthermore, the source site: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/63*.html states that the text i public domain. There is no copyright issue. I would prefer you to check this before reverting my additions. Please correct my article and instead improve it further.

Raven_rs :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven rs (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that. Licenses are usually on the bottom of the page. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Shred Nations
Hello, I am a new user. I was thinking of creating a page called Draft:Shred Nations but it seems that you deleted a page with this name in 2016. Does this mean there is some other procedure that must be followed? Hanjaf1 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The good news is that there is not limitation on the title (sometimes there is, but not this time) so can create that draft. The bad news is that starting a new article is challenging for editors with no experience, so you would be better off learning to edit by making small improvements to existing articles, but that’s your call. S Philbrick (Talk)  15:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice! Hanjaf1 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
Hi Just emailed you to ask that you undo your removal of my edits to the page for Newlyn Art Gallery.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newlyn_Art_Gallery I work for the gallery and updated the page with text we've used on our website. PLease would you reinstate it. Also, the images I added yesterday have been removed. Please would you put them back. The photo that was there (I removed it) is way out of date.

PLease let me edit this page myself!

Thanks Kathy
 * There are two problems. Given your connection to the gallery, you have a Conflict_of_interest and should not be directly editing the article. You are encouraged to post suggestions for improvement on the talk page. Second, the text you copied is subject to full copyright and use of that text, without arranging for an acceptable license, is a violation of our copyright policy.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I would really like to update the information on the page, to refelct the work the gallery is doing now, and add some more recent photographs. I don't understand why my images have been removed. Also, the text is used is accurate. Please woudl you revery to the updates I made this morning and reinstate the ohotogrpahs of the gallery. Thank you. Kathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathynewlyn (talk • contribs) 14:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see someone else restored the image to the article. I note it has some problems, but someone has contacted you about the problem. link to photo S Philbrick (Talk)  15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)