User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 132

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hey man im josh
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex Bakharev · CorbieVreccan · Cyphoidbomb · Davodd · Hog Farm · JamesR · KnightLago · Mark Ironie · Nosebagbear (deceased) · Rschen7754 · Tamzin · TonyBallioni



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg DatGuy
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ferret · RickinBaltimore
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TonyBallioni · Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg RickinBaltimore
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TonyBallioni · Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news
 * Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
You said:

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.


 * In one of my first edits, I indicated material added was translated text from https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elea-Velia, and this applies to most of it. I did not put the comment on the same edit as I pushed the button too soon. Rjdeadly (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I did miss the edit summary identifying the source as an article in the Italian Wikipedia.
 * However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
 * Our copyright tool identified this page as a possible source. It seems plausible that whoever wrote that borrowed from and translated the article in the Italian Wikipedia without properly acknowledging the source. I reverted my removal. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on revision
Hello,

I see that you have reverted some changes I made to the article on Tenterfield Terriers and have cited the reason as "Copyright issue re https://www.tenterfieldterrieraust.com/natural-bob-tails ". As someone who is relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, I just wanted to confirm whether this is because my additions to the page are too similar to the article I used as a source, or if it is for some other reason. Just so I know for the future. Thank you for helping me out with this!

Cheers,

Citronnel Citronnel (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * S Philbrick (Talk)  13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? Citronnel (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure what happened.
 * The answer is yes, your edit was too close to the copyrighted original. S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, thank you for your response! Citronnel (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Maximo Group Network etc, and a possible sockfarm.
I see you've nominated Draft:Maximo Group Network for deletion as a hoax. Have you taken at a look at the creator, User:Jhingur Mahan Chand's other contributions? Personally, I'd have to suggest that amongst the inconsequential padding, there is something that looks very much like paid editing going on. And I suspect there may be multiple accounts involved. Chand edited the Aditya Dey article, seven minutes after User:Sumashaikh created it. Sumashaikh in turn created the Atiul islam article, which was very shortly after edited by User:Musenene farahat, who is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:KibangaWiki. Given the multiple accounts possibly involved, it might take a checkuser to figure this all out. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I confess my detective skills are very rusty. While I am moderately active, almost all my edits are copyright related. Am aware that some well-known industrial names are sometimes owned by a holding company not as well-known I did some brief dating and didn't see any sign that Maximo group which appears to be in the music business owns the major German firm. It didn't ring true it also doesn't sound like a classic hoax. What's the point? Look briefly at some of the other edits something seems off but I haven't put my fingers on it. I'm not a check user but perhaps that's the next step. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See also this thread on User:Jhingur Mahan Chand at User talk:Bbb23. . I'm beginning to suspect that User:Mrjoegoldberg may be involved in this too: Chand created Rajkumar Patra at 16:28 today, Mrjoegoldberg edited the article at 17:51. Mrjoegoldberg had also edited Tez Tarrar, six minutes after Chand created it. There may be further connections not visible to non-admins like me, since I can't see the history of deleted articles etc. Unless someone else gets around to it first, I'll start an SPI, but I'd prefer to get a better picture of what is going on before I do. It's all a bit confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made a report at WP:ANI AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrongful deletion of an article in February 2023
Hello. Back in February 2023, I created the article "List of Trichloroethylene related incidents" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_trichloroethylene-related_incidents&action=edit&redlink=1) by copying and moving text from the article for trichloroethylene to keep the main article focused on trichloroethylene. You have deleted it on 28 February 2023 for "copyright infringement" from a site that was mirroring the text from Wikipedia and, therefore claimed that I copy-pasted material from a random site that copied material from Wikipedia.

I believe that mirror sites cannot be used as a reason for "copyright infringement" deletion since their material is taken from Wikipedia, which "copyright infringement" wouldn't apply sitewide. Saint concrete (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is permissible to copy material from one Wikipedia article into another. However, that action must be properly attributed.
 * Proper attribution serves two purposes. First and foremost, it is required by the terms of the license. This applies to re-use of material both within and outside of Wikipedia.
 * A secondary purpose is that it helps avoid false positives when searching for copyright violations. Many thousands of sites copy the content of Wikipedia. When our copyright detection tool examines a new edit, to determine whether the text existed elsewhere before being added to the specific Wikipedia article, it is not uncommon that the search tool will uncover a site with the text, which happened to have been taken from a Wikipedia article. This edit will be flagged as a potential copyright issue. These potential violations are largely viewed by humans, who will check to see if proper attribution has been given. Thankfully, many editors are aware of the need for attribution, and will provide some indication that this is material from an existing Wikipedia article. The best practices are outlined at Copying within Wikipedia.
 * I run across dozens of examples of this every week. In some cases editors fully comply with best practices, and those reports can be handled simply by identifying them with "no action needed" in the system. In many instances, an editor will not be familiar with the best practices but will provide an edit summary strongly suggesting that the added text came from another Wikipedia article. While that is technically a copyright violation, it is my practice to simply point the editor to the editing guideline, and either ask them to add the necessary attribution or do it myself. If the editor fails to provide either the best practices attribution wording, or a clear indication that the material did come from an existing article, it's likely that the edit will be reverted or the article removed depending on the circumstances.
 * I have restored the article and added the required attribution. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Saint concrete (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanna talk about Draft:Battle of Akhalkalaki (1918)
Hello, Call me Khutso My real name isnt really important And I would like to talk to you about Battle of Akhalkalaki, Firstly, The words that I have wrote were Deleted even Though, I had source. Secondly, You Don't have to Delete the submittion, I would have gotten More sources. And it was 4 Months away or more for them to see it. I dont really wanna say more stuff because I am not talking about my Article, I just wanna say that u dont have to delete the submittion. (User:Imakewikipedianpages) (User talk:Imakewikipedianpages|talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to the issue which is the use of copyrighted text. S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Content forking
I reverted your recent edit to Mario Bunge. The section you added struck me as WP:UNDUE weight on a very minor part of Bunge's work and also as undesirable WP:Content forking of the article from which you copied it (Protoscience). Instead of copying a whole section like that and thereby spawning a content fork, it's best wherever possible to transclude the section (for example: ) or, if the whole section isn't required, as I think is true in this case, simply link to the section in the other article. I replaced the copied section with a sentence and a link, which is more appropriate weight for this topic in relation to the whole of Bunge's work.

One very positive side effect of your edit was that I checked the original section in Protoscience and noticed that all the references in it were incorrect, so I was able to correct that! Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry,, I just noticed that it wasn't you who copied the section, it was. I will leave a note on their talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

East Norriton revert
You said "copyright issues" was the reason that you reverted my edit. Could you perhaps clarify the copyright issues? Thank you. G'year    talk   ·   mail   22:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, the article link is here. G'year    talk   ·   mail   23:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, that website you mentioned in your edit summary said it used the Township of East Norriton, which I cited in my edit, as its source. G'year    talk   ·   mail   23:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The material you added in your edit was too close to the text in the source. Text added in an edit should be sourced, which you did, but it should also be written in your own words in most cases, which did not appear to be the case. There are some exceptions to writing it in your own words such as material in the public domain, or short passages identified as quotes from the original. S Philbrick  (Talk)  23:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All well, but why did you make my edit invisible? A westman    talk     e-mail   15:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's standard procedure. We not only want to remove copyright violations from the current visible article but also from history. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover
Hello S Philbrick,

Please help, as I am very confused. If you review other notable composers who have articles in Wikipedia you will find that they may have a separate article listing their Compositions. If you search for "lists of compositions by..." You will see many acceptable examples. Also, if you review ways to improve a composer's article adding a separate list of compositions is recommended.

Katherine Hoover's main article has gotten very long. It is also difficult to see her importance to contemporary classical music for flutes. I have submitted a "list of compositions by Katherine Hoover" For approval as a new article. After it is approved this deletion can be made from her main article. I hope I did not misunderstand the ways to improve a composer's article.

I can provide specific examples of what I am trying to do and I'm confused as to the most appropriate way to do it. Please help, I do not know what to do.

Thank you for your time, AJ, AjAirFlex (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This edit Added quite a number of compositions.
 * That wasn't the problem — the problem was the subsequent edit which appeared to be simply copied from this page.
 * It is standard procedure when removing a copy right violation to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. In most cases, that's the right step. In this case, I can see that you added a long list of compositions and then followed it up with material that I think has a copyright issue. I've modified my edit to permit the list of compositions. We can still talk about the subsequent edit if you disagree with my assessment. S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Disagreement re Gautrain article
Hi there, You completely deleted all my edits on the Gautrain article for supposed copyright issues. I respectfully disagree. There is certainly absolutely no justification to delete everything I wrote and other changes I made. You not only deleated EVERYTHING I wrote but even deleted the reorganisation of the article, which certainly cannot represent a copyright issue. What exactly do you consider a copyright issue, please? Can you please restore and let me amend what you consider problematic? thank you Fmjwiki (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * When an editor encounters a copyright violation, it is standard practice to perform what is called a rollback, which is in undoing of all consecutive edits by the same editor. While this action is understandably viewed as a possible overreaction, experience shows that when a single edit is a copyright violation, simply undoing that specific edit might damage the article, as the edits before and after the problematic edit are often related, and it is best to remove all of the edits and start over.
 * If you want to contest the copyright violation I will be happy to discuss it with you to determine whether it was valid. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. First I don't believe there was a copyright violation but secondly, this doesn't justify a general rollback. Who gives you the autority to do all this without any discussion? A reorganisation of the article for example certainly isn't a copyright violation. I wrote paragraphs that are now gone and cannot even be retrieved. You re not only reverting edits, you bluntly delete content . The consequences of your intervention are substantial. I think you should justify what you consider a copyright violation and why and not me proving that there is none. What I find particularly shocking is that I can't even retrieve what you deleted to re-use/adjust. I am more than happy to hear and understand what you consider problematic, but I am really shocked by how this is done without any consideration for my work. How can we sort this out please? --Fmjwiki (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to run to a meeting, but your material is retrievable. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm back from my meeting. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several issues to discuss. One is whether your edit constituted a copyright violation. I double checked and it still seems to be the case but we can discuss. However there are some other issues worth mentioning.
 * secondly, this doesn't justify a general rollback. It is standard procedure to do a rollback when addressing a copyright violation. There are good reasons for this. A rollback has the potential of sweeping in acceptable edits while addressing copyright violations. If we sort out the copyright violation we can discuss edits that might be preserved.
 * A reorganisation of the article for example certainly isn't a copyright violation. A reorganization often triggers a false positive. When that's the only issue, while I can't speak for other editors, I know I look for this and often mark potential issue as not an issue because it arises from reorganization. While I realize you have an edit identified as reorganization that's not the edit that triggered the issue.
 * You re not only reverting edits, you bluntly delete content. It wasn't blunt it's the result of a rollback which we can discuss, but as noted above that's standard procedure
 * The consequences of your intervention are substantial. Not really. If you convince me that I made a mistake, I can restore the results in seconds
 * I think you should justify what you consider a copyright violation I do and did
 * not me proving that there is none. This makes no sense. I think there was a copyright violation. You disagreed, I have double checked and still think there's a copyright violation. If the burden is not on you then who? If it's on me I've already done that step. I identified the edit and identified the potential source. I do make mistakes but there's no mysterious third-party that's going to step in if you choose not to
 * What I find particularly shocking is that I can't even retrieve what you deleted to re-use/adjust. You can't but I can as mentioned above. I don't get why it's shocking to you but that's not particularly important
 * Back to the copyright violation. I change the visibility of the edit so you can see your edit. You can also look at this page and see that a substantial portion of your edit matches Word for Word the linked site. That in itself is not definitive evidence. Perhaps the linked site is acceptably licensed although I don't see it. Perhaps the linked site took the information from something you wrote but that seems highly unlikely. Perhaps is another alternative I haven't considered
 * ____________ S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It's fair to say we still disagree, notably on the process. General rollback and presumption of guilt is not appropriate in my view. But let's focus on the alleged copyright violation. The "substantial portion" of my edit that matches the site is the factual list of rail network extension branches envisaged. The site in question, which I didn't even know, actuelly itself copy pasted this from an official autority site (which I had consulted). A list of extension branches envisaged for a rail network is not a copyright violation of some intellectual writing production in my view but I will adjust so the words are different and the match cannot be detected anymore. I hope I can now retrieve my edits again, redo them with the required adjustments. All this remains absolutely disproportionate and is very discouraging for Wikipedia users. --Fmjwiki (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Lists are one of the more challenging copyright issues. I don't plan to delve into the details but a simple list of Station locations is probably fine, but when those locations are expanded into a descriptive sentence, it is likely you crossed the boundary into creative content. Editors working in copyright generally take the view that we should air on the side of caution — something that might prevail in a court case means there has to be a court case which is a significant issue. Rewriting in your own words would solve the problem.
 * As I mentioned, it would be straightforward to restore the article to how it looked before I did the rollback and let you work on a rewrite, I see that you have made substantial edits since that rollback so there's no trivial way to reinstate the rollback to recover your reorganization and salvage of subsequent edits.
 * As for the process, you are welcome to debate the policy at the policy page within wp:village pump, or if you have a specific proposal you can propose that on the proposal page within village pump.
 * I'm not oblivious to the fact that putting work into an article and seeing it rolledback is disheartening. However, had you Simply responded that you disagreed and opened a discussion, I could have easily undone the rollback to let you rewrite the problematic sentences. You chose a different approach and frankly I'm on the cusp of giving up on this project, and if I walk away from Wikipedia it will be because of reactions like yours. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Coda: you pretty much ruined my day yesterday, but when I decided to reach out to another editor to get a second set of eyes on this issue, I stumbled across a TED talk "The Joy of Learning Random Things on Wikipedia", which brightened up my day.

Hello The page you cited as a source is this one, which while an official page is also marked as copyright: "© Copyright 2012 - 2018 Gautrain Management Agency. All rights reserved." The case is borderline, verging on list-like material, but it's unacceptable to copy it verbatim, because you also copied the surrounding prose. I have found a way to make it more copyright compliant, by altering/omitting some of the prose, and alphabetizing the lists of stations, which seemed to be listed in random order anyways rather than in sequential geographic order. And Fmjwiki, I can understand that you were upset when you saw your work undone, but I think you over-reacted here, as you only lost a series of edits that took you five minutes to perform. Not substanital consequences, not shocking; and it's the kind of thing you will likely encounter again in your Wikipedia career. So please consider reacting in a more measured way when you have a complaint about someone's actions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had already made modifications when re-inserting the content as per remarks made. I do not believe I have overreacted here. I am still shocked by the way presumption of guilt and general rollback is considered acceptable for both of you. And before I was complaining, the content wasn't even available anymore for me to retrieve and adapt. On your edits: an alphabetizing list of stations doesn't make sense at all for a user to understand a project, to me it needs to be geographic to be understandable. I will double check with the maps on the Gautrain Management Agency website. In any case, I think the "borderline" maybe copyright issue is now solved.--Fmjwiki (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Advice regarding copyvios
Hi Sphilbrick! I noticed on the Frankfurt Christmas Market, Birmingham that you made an edit that reverted my "Template:Copyvio" template on coprighted text that was added by another user but did not remove the copyrighted text. (The text was later removed by another user because it was "borderline advertising-like"). Copyright issues on Wikipedia are something I'm not super well versed in, so I wanted to make sure that I didn't make any mistakes in the future. Was adding this template appropriate for this article and situation? If not, how should I handle it when I notice what I believe to be copyrighted content? Thanks so much for any advice! Wikipedialuva (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, you were fine. In looking at the history trying to sort out exactly what happened and confess I don't fully follow it. The article came to my attention because it appeared in a CopyPatrol listing, which was triggered by an edit by Gazzapeal. Frankly, I didn't look too closely will notice, but I did note that the editor made several edits, all problematic so I chose to revert to a version before the beginning of the sequence. Because I thought I was cleaning out all of the problems, it seemed logical to remove your notice as well so the edit summary talks about reverting good-faith edits by you, which may leave the impression that your edits were problematic. That's not the case. It also appears that my choice of a reversion point wasn't ideal and left some problematic material which was removed by a subsequent editor. S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you asked advice regarding best practices and I'm still mulling this over.
 * The state-of-the-art regarding handling copyright issues is evolving. I'm aware of two bots which revert copyright violations. I wasn't involved in the creation of either I will make a comment about both of them but it's based on observation rather than truly knowing how they work. I believe both of these bots examine brand-new edits — they aren't scouring existing articles looking for copyright articles they are only drinking from the fire hose of new edits. I've never look closely at the results but I am unaware of any thoughts positives. It's also my impression that they catch only a modest proportion of copyright violations.
 * The more important tool is that all new edits are examined and some are flagged in the Copypatrol tool. These flagged edits are reviewed by volunteers such as myself. A significant portion of these edits are reviewed by humans within hours of creation and most within a day or two.
 * My suggestion is that if you see an edit that appears to be a copyright violation, and that edit is recent (less than a couple days old) you should either fix it yourself if you feel comfortable, or let it go and count on it showing up in the Copypatrol tool. If it is older than that then tagging it with the template you used is appropriate.
 * If you have any interest in helping, Copyptrol is understaffed, and could use help. As you can see from the leaderboard, a relatively small handful of users is trying to address the hundreds of reports that show up each week. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying and for such a thorough response about both my edit and how to address possible copyvio issues going forward. Also, thanks for letting me know about Copyptrol; I had not heard of this, but it looks like something that I might be able to help with. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Politico copyright
Since when Politico is a violation of copyright? Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Since forever. They've never been freely licensed as far as I know. S Philbrick  (Talk)  18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

USAToday copyright issue
You reverted a USAToday citation due to copyright concerns on the VoteRiders page. USA Today is listed as a generally reliable source in Wikipedia. Please elaborate your concerns. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The issue has nothing to do with it being a reliable source. I agree it is a reliable source but the content is copyrighted so you cannot simply copy it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)