User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 117

Persian gulf university
Dear Sphilbrick hello thank you for your information about rules of copyright, I noticed that you just reverted Persian Gulf University that i have put hours to write it, this mistake was because of the native language and i have used the main website of the university as they ask me to do it and also cited the website and articles. i can email wikipedia with "Persian gulf university" email address about it because they want those information to be there, although some informations was provided by me and there was lots of changes in administration, some wasn't even broke the rules like university box or address or there website. but you have reverted ALL the content. please tell me if im wrong about mentioned information and help me to do whats right about what they asked me to put on their wikipedia. do i need any other source? appreciate your time. --Miladdavoodi (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , New messages go at the bottom of the page.
 * You cannot use the content at the website of the University even if they ask you to. If you are doing it at their direction then you probably have a conflict of interest and should read:
 * Conflict_of_interest in comply with the disclosure requirements.
 * There's not much point in contacting the University. While in principle, if they provided a license for the material it could be used without violation of copyright rules, but it is almost certainly not going to be neutrally written, so it's probably a waste of time to jump through the hoops of licensing even if they were willing to which is unlikely.
 * You seem surprised that I reverted all the content but that's standard procedure. When any edit or a sequence of edits contained copyright violations, we use a protocol called rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. If you would like the content for some reason, let me know and I will email it to you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's not much point in contacting the University. While in principle, if they provided a license for the material it could be used without violation of copyright rules, but it is almost certainly not going to be neutrally written, so it's probably a waste of time to jump through the hoops of licensing even if they were willing to which is unlikely.
 * You seem surprised that I reverted all the content but that's standard procedure. When any edit or a sequence of edits contained copyright violations, we use a protocol called rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. If you would like the content for some reason, let me know and I will email it to you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem surprised that I reverted all the content but that's standard procedure. When any edit or a sequence of edits contained copyright violations, we use a protocol called rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. If you would like the content for some reason, let me know and I will email it to you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback, yeah unfortunately i couldn't help to expand articles for past eight years as a member of wikipedia.hence, i wasn't Familiar with the rules. so please correct me if im wrong, i stikcan correct mistakes in Persian Gulf University article within the framework of neutral point of view and copyright rules. --Miladdavoodi (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Porpentina Goldstein
Hello Sphilbrick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Porpentina Goldstein, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: FANDOM's content is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is acceptable per WP:COMPLIC. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Interesting I did not notice that. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Fab site usually do not. (I do understand this is a different question than copyright.) S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely isn't a reliable source, but also can't be relied on not to have copied copyright content from somewhere else and then re-licenced it. We shouldn't be allowing any content from there to be added here, even if all we can do is remove it as unsourced. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue
Dear Sphilbrick,

I was not able to find your justification for the concern you have raised regarding the copyright of a citation that I attempted to add to this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises&oldid=969625480

Publications from the World Bank Group are typically licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY). Please see this link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/pages/faq

Could you please advise the reason for your edit?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenbarreto (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , The material was found on a site that had this notice:
 * © 2019 The World Bank Group
 * 1818 H Street NW
 * Washington, DC 20433
 * Telephone: 202-473-1000
 * Internet: www.worldbank.org
 * All rights reserved.
 * Rights and Permissions
 * The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this
 * work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages
 * dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work
 * promptly.
 * I'm not sure how to square that with your link.
 * I hope it is the case that World Bank publications are generally licensed in a way we can use them, but I trust you can see why I have concerns. Can you help alleviate them? It is not uncommon that editors want to use World Bank publications in it be nice to know that those can be used in general. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * promptly.
 * I'm not sure how to square that with your link.
 * I hope it is the case that World Bank publications are generally licensed in a way we can use them, but I trust you can see why I have concerns. Can you help alleviate them? It is not uncommon that editors want to use World Bank publications in it be nice to know that those can be used in general. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope it is the case that World Bank publications are generally licensed in a way we can use them, but I trust you can see why I have concerns. Can you help alleviate them? It is not uncommon that editors want to use World Bank publications in it be nice to know that those can be used in general. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope it is the case that World Bank publications are generally licensed in a way we can use them, but I trust you can see why I have concerns. Can you help alleviate them? It is not uncommon that editors want to use World Bank publications in it be nice to know that those can be used in general. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saheb_Bhattacharya#Films
Can u please tell me why you delete my edits? There is no copyright issue they why you delete all edits? Mayurydas (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I just change the layout of this page add info using infobox. Please add my edits it looks much better Mayurydas (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You added information that came from this site, which appears to be fully copyrighted. If you think I'm missing something, please explain.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a trusted site they collect information from other sites. Please add my edit full article was written by me for bookmyhow then now I add this here. Mayurydas (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If it was written by you and published elsewhere, it is possible you assign your copyright to the publisher. Please provide a link to where it was published, so we can talk about how to confirm who needs to provide permission. If it has been published, as it clearly has, we need a specific license from you if you are still the copyright holder or from the copyright holder if you assigned it to someone else.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

undid cremator?
Why did you undo all that? Most of it was directly taken from sources on the Czech wiki and from the Criterion channel? Is there a way to get any of that back?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, explain the violation to me because I want to expand the article like it says. --Mr. 123453334 (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the edit were identified as copyright violations. Copies from other Wikipedia articles can produce false positives, which is why it is a requirement to identify such edits in the edit summary. I just took a glance at the edit summaries and see no such notices. Did I miss them?
 * Yes the material can be recovered. In fact, I haven't yet revdelled it so you can access it yourself, just look at the history. Let me know if you don't know how to do that. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean when you say it came from the Criterion channel? Is that a freely licensed reliable source?  S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The Criterion Channel produced bonus videos with Juraj Herz, Zdenek Liska and others who worked on the film so it is certainly reliable. I am new here and not sure how do detect if something is specifically copyrighted or not? The extras have a lot of important info on the film's production straight from the director's mouth. How would I include that info without violating any copyrights?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you want the info in the article just write it in your own words instead of directly copying it. Alternatively, you could just quote the information if it came "straight from the director's mouth." Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 23:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Summarizing copyright in one or two sentences is virtually impossible — just read copyright to get an overview of the subject. In general, most things you find on the Internet is subject to copyright. The major exceptions for text written in the last few decades are works by the US federal government, and works where a license such as CC-BY is specifically mentioned. Some people are still under the impression that if you do not see a copyright notice, then it is not subject to copyright but that's not the case. If you write things in your own words, and identify a published reliable source as a reference, you will probably be okay. Limited quotations of copyrighted material are permitted but they must be noted as quotes and referenced. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You did not receive an answer to this question which I just saw. Did you find it anywhere else?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have not received an answer and would still be interested in knowing the answer. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one to ask in this case. I just read the archives. Maybe ask again?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

158.140.192.97
Can user:158.140.192.97 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

David G. Campbell
22:24, 17 October 2020‎ 184.101.103.239 talk‎ 6,456 bytes +624‎ Updated committee work, added ALI and ABF, and added foreign work Tags: possible unreferenced addition to BLP Reverted 23:19, 17 October 2020‎ Sphilbrick talk contribs‎ 5,832 bytes -624‎ Reverted good faith edits by 184.101.103.239 (talk): Copyright issue re https://online.iaals.du.edu/profile/david-g-campbell Tags: Undo Twinkle Reverted 00:41, 18 October 2020‎ Jhawkinson talk contribs‎ m 6,456 bytes +624‎ ''rv 984064091 by Sphilbrick (talk). You can't copyright facts, which most of these are. Nor is "which oversees the work of" a copyrightable statement. Restore previous.'' Tags: Undo Reverted 12:36, 18 October 2020‎ Sphilbrick talk contribs‎ 5,832 bytes -627‎ Reverted good faith edits by Jhawkinson (talk): Multiple issues Tags: Undo Twinkle

Err, "Multple issues"? That's really pretty abstruse. What are they? I didn't make the original edit (from an IP user), but I did examine it, conclude it was correct, and undo your reversion because it was not merited and the basis you offered was not proper. What's the basis you're offering now? jhawkinson (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Explained on your talk page. FTR, I didn't assume you made that edit. I also tagged the article, rather than removing it. There are zero references in a BLP, which justifiably could be removed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

editing reversions
re Elena Langer edits - ok, so I need to rephrase the biog since it replicates the one on her website? Actually this is the copy she sent me for purposes of updating the wiki entry! - so there seems unlikely to be any copyright issue. But happy to rewrite anyway if that's the wiki policy. Thanks for your note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clontibret (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , While this might surprise you, it is still a copyright issue even if she sent the material to you. we allow just about anyone to edit Wikipedia without requiring evidence of their identity, so we have no way of knowing that she may have given you such permission. There is a process for providing a license, but the best option would be to simply rewrite it in your own words. Please make sure the claims are properly cited and the requirements for citations are that they must link to a published reliable source so her website almost certainly does not qualify. I understand it may be surprising that her say-so is not good enough for Wikipedia, but one of the main tenets of Wikipedia is that it is based upon published reliable sources rather than on material provided by the subject. Let me know if you need more information. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Maharagama Divisional Secretariat
Is there any way for me to retrieve the content of that page? It's currently a total stub. Uvants (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can email it to you you have to turn on your email in preferences. Let me know if you don't know how to do that S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be great. I have enabled emailing. Uvants (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Email sent S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Received! Uvants (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Copying w/in WP
Thanks for pointing that out and furnishing the link so constructively. I linked it, making it a favorite for easy referral. You are a total gentleman/gentlelady! Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issue explanation
hello, I can see that you have reverted my edits due to some copyright issues. I couldn't get the exact edit which had the issue. You have removed all the edits in which most of them had proper citations. Is there any way that I can get those edits back? And could you please be more specific regarding the copyright issue which has to be corrected. I can assure that there has been no violation of rights. Kindly respond with a explanation and ways to get the correct edits back. Thank youJecyT (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see that you are a new editor and new editors do not always realize the importance of edit summaries. While the edit summary was brief, it stated:
 * Copyright issue re http://www.gct.ac.in/sites/gct.ac.in/files/files/Syllabus-2012%20Regulation.pdf
 * The text at that site is almost certainly subject to full copyright. If it has been licensed in a way that can be used in Wikipedia there is no mention on that page that I found. If it has been licensed and it's mentioned on that site, please pointed out and I can undo my removal. If it's licensed and the license is posted elsewhere, let me know and I can investigate.
 * Please let me know if you think there's a reason that this copyrighted information can be used, or if you think it's not subject to copyright even though it does not have an explicit license permitting use. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you think there's a reason that this copyrighted information can be used, or if you think it's not subject to copyright even though it does not have an explicit license permitting use. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you think there's a reason that this copyrighted information can be used, or if you think it's not subject to copyright even though it does not have an explicit license permitting use. S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Government College of Technology is a 100% state funded educational institution. Typically state funded institutions put up a lot of information in the interest of transparency. India's "Right to Information Act, 2005" promotes such transparent functioning of state funded institutions. Since transparency is the motive, such documents do not have any mention of a license permitting its use. If you go through the document cited, you would find that it just contains the various subjects offered by different academic departments of the institution. For above stated reasons I strongly think the material is not subject to copyright and can be cited on Wiki pagesJecyT (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, that's not good enough. Works done by US federal employees in the course of their employment are automatically in the public domain, but this is explicitly spelled out in legislation. In contrast, I've noticed that works created by employees of the Indian government are not automatically public domain. Many of the official government sites explicitly identify the material as being subject to full copyright. While it's theoretically possible that the government of India has decided that government created documents are not in the public domain, but documents associated with educational institutions are in the public domain, I need to see that explicitly spelled out. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , See C:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_I-L S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am learning to edit wiki pages. GCT is one of the most reputed institutions in South India. But as you can see it's wikipedia page is on stub level. I am trying to add details and updated information. And I understand your point of view. If I were to remove references to "Vision and Mission" from my edit, there wouldn't arise a need to cite the document. I would like to retain the rest of the changes as they have been cited. Is that agreeable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JecyT (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Much of my Wikipedia work these days is narrowly focused on copyright issues, so I'm not taking on general requests to talk through how to improve an article. However, you mentioned "vision and mission" I urge you to take a look at Avoid mission statements. I do agree with you that a highly regarded university ought to have more than just stub coverage, so in general I hope you will continue to try to improve that article. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Can you undo the removal of other edits that I made in other sections?JecyT (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!JecyT (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Advice relating to CC-BY-SA-3.0 and 3rd party copyright ownership
Greetings Sphilbrick, most of the photos I've put on Wikipedia are ones I've taken. However I want to do a couple on the dreaded pandemic. You were kind enough to help me with copyright on an article on Everards Brewery and I got Everards to sign the CC-BY-SA-3.0 without any problem. Now I want to do the same with one of the excellent outdoor social 'bubble' photos the Stamford arms Groby have on their website -and put it on Commons.

[*https://Stamford Arms – 2 Leicester Rd, Groby, Leicester LE6 0DJ]

Unfortunately I need to go into hospital for surgery and have a lot of neck pain, hence my few contributions this year. Whereas I understood the text Everard's were required to sign for the license I'm unable to find it now. If you you have time and could point me in the right direction I'd be extremely grateful.

Regards JRPG (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to run out for a couple hours of work. I'll try to respond when I get home. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for not writing more closely before I left; if I'm right it would had been only a few seconds to agency a question but I thought I had to do more research. I'll provide a link to the standard wording for permission. Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries  S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for this, I hope to add some useful photo contributions which I wouldn't otherwise have done. Keep safe.  JRPG (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Itanagar
The copyvio problem you dealt with in Itanagar may go even further back - see this diff, with its helpful ES, and compare it with the contents of the link in that ES. (Feel free to revert me on the way through if necessary; all I did was add two dn tags.) Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I already took care of it I think. Let me know if I'm still missing something. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me :) Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of what I did wrong, please
Dear User Sphilbrick, I noticed that you did remove all citations from the draft version of the new Article "Simpson Desert Bike Challenge", referencing copyright violations. Can you please specifically advise which citation did violate copyright rules? I am keen to learn. Also, I was under the impression that reviews by other users would only occur once I submit the draft article for review (which I did not, as this is very much work in progress)? I will start over with adding references and hope to receive feedback which helps me to improve and learn, rather than be sent back to square A1 without detailed explanation, please. Looking forward to hearing back. Kind regards -Ausdangergirl (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , It wasn't the citations themselves which were problems, it was the text added closely matched this site. our copyright tool indicates that the match was 90%. That material is fully copyrighted. it may well be an appropriate site to review and use as a source but the content should be written in your own words in most cases.
 * You are correct that a review of a draft generally takes place after you submitted for review, but we cannot permit copyright violations anywhere at any time so we don't wait for the review process to address them. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that a review of a draft generally takes place after you submitted for review, but we cannot permit copyright violations anywhere at any time so we don't wait for the review process to address them. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello User Sphilbrick, Thank you for your fast response and clarification. I now understand and will correct my citations, observing copyright rules (any breaches were unintended). I am now working on comprehensive references to comply with Wikipedia's rules... and would be happy for you to review (again) once I am at that point, please. --Ausdangergirl (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Happy to hear you understand. I'll be happy to take a look when you are done. S Philbrick  (Talk)  01:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Hey I created St Andrew, Mirehouse. This title has been moved or deleted. Can you reinstate it or allow me to modify it further, since I deleted the content that violates copyright. Thanks, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.brad (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you turn on the email option (go to user preferences), I can email you a copy of the content. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey I have now done this. Thanks, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.brad (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅ let me know if you need the version you initially created S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Category:Public universities and colleges in Maine
Hi Sphilbrick, I noticed that you added Category:Public universities and colleges in Maine to to all of the articles in Category:Community colleges in Maine and Category:University of Maine System. I don't think they should be there per WP:SUBCAT. What do you think?--User:Namiba 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , First, I'm happy to see your response if only for evidence that there's someone looking at some of these articles. I've posted a fair bit to Talk:List of colleges and universities in Maine and the crickets are loud.
 * Second, I don't remotely pretend to be an expert on categorization, so I'd like to explain what I'm trying to do, and maybe you can help me figure out if there's a better way to do it.
 * Before I jump into what I'm trying to do, I documented what I did at the talk page listed earlier in this post, and I don't believe I made any changes to Category:University of Maine System.
 * As I explained on the talk page, I thought it would be helpful to create a map showing the location of schools. While the list includes a location, even people who live in the state may not immediately recall where each city or town is located and certainly people not familiar with the state would not know this information. I think it is useful information to see which schools are new to each other and near to other landmarks such as state borders, seacoast etc. I've done similar work for state parks and historic sites such as List_of_Maine_state_parks.
 * My process, in the case of state parks, was to start with the observation that all of the state parks were in a single category. I used that category in a Petscan to generate a list of state parks along with the latitude and longitude and then created a map.
 * I thought I'd try the same with colleges and universities. I noticed that there was not one single category for all colleges and universities in the state but a separate category for private versus public. I was fine with that distinction and decided to capture both and use color coding to identify both categories.
 * I just took a second look at the petscan, and I see that I can specified depth, so perhaps I can include the category
 * Category:Community colleges in Maine and add depth equals one and see if that will pick them up.
 * Years ago, I read that there was widespread dissatisfaction with our categorization scheme,and this seems like a great example of a problem. If I'm interested in the colleges and universities in the state of Maine, it doesn't seem like I should have to go to so much trouble to search for individual entities in that category, then search for subcategories and drill down, and rinse and repeat until I get everything. I suspect the problem is a challenging problem, but I thought someone was going to work on it, and I decided not to spend too much time worrying about the categorization system on the assumption that it was going to be fixed, but that doesn't seem to of happened and I'm not aware that anybody's working on it.
 * If you want to undo my edits I can try to see if I can modify the Petscan to pick up what I need. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I undid my edits. I figured out how to modify Petscan. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just took a second look at the petscan, and I see that I can specified depth, so perhaps I can include the category
 * Category:Community colleges in Maine and add depth equals one and see if that will pick them up.
 * Years ago, I read that there was widespread dissatisfaction with our categorization scheme,and this seems like a great example of a problem. If I'm interested in the colleges and universities in the state of Maine, it doesn't seem like I should have to go to so much trouble to search for individual entities in that category, then search for subcategories and drill down, and rinse and repeat until I get everything. I suspect the problem is a challenging problem, but I thought someone was going to work on it, and I decided not to spend too much time worrying about the categorization system on the assumption that it was going to be fixed, but that doesn't seem to of happened and I'm not aware that anybody's working on it.
 * If you want to undo my edits I can try to see if I can modify the Petscan to pick up what I need. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I undid my edits. I figured out how to modify Petscan. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to undo my edits I can try to see if I can modify the Petscan to pick up what I need. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I undid my edits. I figured out how to modify Petscan. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I undid my edits. I figured out how to modify Petscan. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for No personal attacks
An editor has asked for a deletion review of No personal attacks. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJPMaster (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)