User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 88

IYPT
hi, i contacted the authors of http://aypt.at/en/basic_info/tournament_course and they agreed to add a CC license to the that work so it can be used for wikipedia. They're happy to use a different license or do whatever is necessary to allow the use of the text for wikipedia. Is it ok to revert the article to the longer version, given that the copyright issue is resolved? It that seems more appropriate for an international competition with 30+ years of history, many thousand participants (see http://archive.iypt.org/people/) - just like IPhO, which has a similarly comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.42.48 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

could you see if a talk page has veered too far afield?
Talk:David Ogden Stiers appears to have an RfC discussion about that article, and I fear some of the comments bear little relation to the normal stated use of any RfC. Collect (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this. A fair amount to read, as the pre-RFC discussions appear relevant.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Collect (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Gircha
I noticed that you deleted a version of Gircha as being copyvio of "igirchabsa.webs.com". In fact, most of the history of this article is full of that. Removing all those edits with copyvio might be possible but perhaps deleting and recreating is a quicker option (if allowed). The Banner talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked into this breifly, and agree there are problems, but I wasn't able to definitely conclude that overall removal was warranted. While there may be some additional edits that deserve revdel, it wasn't clearcut enough for me. Sorry, but I am traveling with limited free time and promised to look into another issue. (Next post)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

MCC
Hi! Thanks for your interest to the MCC page. Just for curiosity, why did you remove my new part? Was there a copyright issue? Thanks --Larry.europe (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as noted in the edit summary:    Copyright issue re https://biodatamining.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13040-017-0155-3. -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But all the BioData Mining papers are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0: "You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.". Where's the problem? Thanks --Larry.europe (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see "© The Author(s) 2017" at the bottom of the article. It is disappointing that the CC license is not more prominent. A stickler might argue that "Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained..." is inconsistent with the license, but I'll let that go.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. --Larry.europe (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

OTRS member?
Hey, Sphilbrick, hope all is good! I have a question: would you be willing to check on five photos that are under one ticket that I have sent to OTRS? Ticket number is #2018032210000731. I'm pretty sure you'll have to ask them for the license... I mentioned it when I sought permission and listed 4.0, but they didn't say anything other giving me permission and who to credit. Thanks, Corky  02:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried accessing the ticket, but it said I did not have sufficient rights.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * o_O  G M G  talk  13:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But, OTRS admins ought to access a huge range of queues! Any ways of knowing about the current ticket-queue?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 14:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... would it be the link to the ticket number that's a problem? I've removed the template as I don't think the first parameter was right... Corky  14:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can now access it. (I tried a different approach) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We generally like to have a more formal statement of permission on file. I sent a letter to the contact person with a filled out permission statement and asked them to return it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I usually do get more of a response than that from the other universities I have contacted (sometimes two or three times to discuss the appropriate license, HQ images, etc.), but I figured sometimes it's just easier to send it to OTRS and get a more formal response that way. I appreciate the help! Corky  17:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ice Cream (band)
Hello! Just checking to see if the Ice Cream (band) page you previously deleted was referencing the same band I am trying to create a page for. I am creating a page for the Ice Cream that appears in this article https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/welcome-to-the-us-girls-universe-listening-guide/ Janemiller10 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not find Ice Cream (band). Can you tell me when it was deleted so I can search deletions on that date?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the date it gave me: 10:27, 16 July 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Ice Cream (band) (G 13 (TW)) Thanks for the reply! Janemiller10 (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it. An early sentence is:


 * "Ice Cream is an American-Canadian garage rock band formed in San Francisco, California in 2013 by Raphael Di Donato, Joseph Sample, Kevin Fielding and Dylan Murray. "


 * Is that it? Do you want it restored?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No this is for a different Ice Cream! Thank you for checking Janemiller10 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK -- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

RHI Magnesita
Hi Sphilbrick, you will need to use your WP:REVDEL again on the page. Cheers, talk to ! dave 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice but it appears I'm not quick enough :) (Thanks, Primefac) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio multiplying like rabbits
A couple of weeks ago you revdel-ed addition of copyright material at Holland Lop. That same material (I assume) got re-added within hours by the same editor. I have reverted but you may want to revdel again. Should I report this to ANI or some other noticeboard? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will try to look at this when I get back from my next meeting. This should be no need to report this to ANI; here is a template to be used which will bring it to the attention of people active in this area Copyvio-revdel-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did the revdel. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You have deleted a large part of my biography "Anthony J. Camp" as the details are practically the same as those on my website, the copyright of which is owned by me, and I have no objection to them being included on Wikipedia. Can they be restored without difficulty. AnthonyCamp (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC).
 * You should not be editing the article about yourself - see WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. If you are "notable" enough in Wikipedia's terms someone else will write about you. Pam  D  14:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , with regard to you owning the copyright on your website. Please see WP:DONATETEXT for information on how to release that text for Wikipedia's use. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But although he could release it for other editors to use if they felt it was appropriate text for the encyclopedia, Anthony should not be adding it, or anything else, to Anthony J. Camp, the article about himself. Independent sources are needed - he could suggest other sources on the article talk page, from which other editors could expand the article. Pam  D  16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Never said that he should. Our two replies were rather independent of the other. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: St. John the Evangelist (Rochester, Minnesota)
Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of St. John the Evangelist (Rochester, Minnesota), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The copyvio text has now been removed. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's my view that when a newly created article is almost all copyvio, that it is easier to ask them to start over, but kudos to you for talking the time to tease out enough to salvage a stub.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Anthony J. Camp
Hi, because I have User:AnthonyCamp's talkpage on my watchlist, I eventually noticed that you removed and revdelled the info he added to the wiki article about himself, Anthony J. Camp. Since the material was observably from his own website, and he wrote it himself, and he is adding his own writing to Wikipedia, that seems to be an express copyright permission. (Note that I'm not saying that he should copy his own bio from his own website and post it into the wiki article; I'm just saying that it seems de facto not a copyright violation.) I'd like to also express here my appreciation for Mr. Camp, who has helped me enormously on several Wikipedia articles and research, with both on-wiki and off-wiki support. Meanwhile, on the COI and autobiography front, I don't think he realized the stricture against directly editing articles about oneself, as his wiki editing is fairly sporadic. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is not express permission. I thought it should be removed for multiple reasons. One is that even if it was appropriately licensed, per WP:AUTO, subject should not be editing articles about themselves. There are some exceptions, such as removal of libelous material, but I don't think any of the exceptions apply. It doesn't remotely qualify as independent; as you know, we want articles written by editors who are independent of the subject. In addition, there is a good reason we insist that licensing of text be more formal, either with explicit licensing on the source, or a filing of a permissions statement with OTRS. Many people, after they read the terms required for a donation, thought they could release text for use on Wikipedia only, and did not realize that the permissions extended to use anywhere, for any purpose. For that reason, we insist on more formal declarations of licenses. I am happy to hear that he has been helpful to you in other articles.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  11:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles Deburau
Hi, Sphilbrick! How have you been? Well and happy, I hope. I have no complaints.

I have what I hope is a very minor problem with the page above: User:Dbachmann tagged it a little while ago for its "inappropriate" tone. I made some changes and asked him (or her) to look them over, but there's been no reply. (Is Dbachmann a bot? Can bots detect inappropriate tones?)  Would you have a minute or two to look at my edits and let me know if I've understood the problem correctly? If I have, I think I've earned the removal of the tag.

Many thanks! Beebuk 09:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been doing well although I little under the weather at the moment. I can confirm that Dbachmann is not a bot. There one of our more prolific editors, with over 200,000 edits. Despite that I you haven't interacted with that editor or don't have a recollection of an interaction.
 * I see that you did ask politely on their talk page. While that editor has edited recently, I note that have not edited their talk page since 5 March. My suggestion would be one more polite comment on the talk page, possibly indicating that you appreciate their observation about the tone, believe you have addressed it and if you don't hear from them, feel that you can remove the tag unless you hear from them and then give them a week or so.I see that you did ask politely on their talk page. While that editor has edited recently, I note that have not edited their talk page since 5 March. My suggestion would be one more polite comment on the talk page, possibly indicating that you appreciate their observation about the tone, believe you have addressed it and if you don't hear from them, feel that you can remove the tag unless you hear from them and then give them a week or so.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your taking the time to respond to this. I'll do as you advise; many thanks for the suggestion.  All will be well.  (But it's distressing to hear that you're "under the weather".  I hope you feel better soon.  It's heroic of you to attend to pests like me when you're struggling with ill health.)  Beebuk 01:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Convert/Archive October 2012
I noticed a red link in the archive box at Template talk:Convert. Investigating shows Template talk:Convert/Archive October 2012 was deleted as G6 in December 2016. Please check if that was accidental and restore if so. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ but why do we have talk pages for nonexistent templates - I suspect that's why it was deleted.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That archive is using an unusual style for the naming, but it's like many more in the archive box at Template talk:Convert. I think you were involved in deleting some hundreds of old related but unused convert templates and testcases and the above might have got caught somewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about deletion of my edit
Hi Sphilbrick, this is regarding your edit no: 836373578 from yesterday where you undid a previous edit of mine on the page in question. The reason you quoted was that there was a copyright issue with a certain website (omics online), which I take to mean the text of my edits had significant overlap with the text in that website. If that is what you meant, I believe you are mistaken: if you look at the wiki page before and after my edit, the amount of overlap with that website is the same; the changes which I made have not come from that website. In fact, the present version of the wiki page (which has only relatively minor differences from where you left it after undoing my edit) has the same sort of overlap with that website. In fact, that website itself seems to have taken its text content either from Wikipedia itself or from the website of the Institute. So I don't understand what you mean by a copyright issue, nor your justification for undoing my edit on those grounds. Please re-look this matter and let me know if you disagree. Swamidivyatma (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I tried restoring.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your quick response and correction! Swamidivyatma (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 27, February – March 2018  Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New collections
 * Alexander Street (expansion)
 * Cambridge University Press (expansion)
 * User Group
 * Global branches update
 * Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
 * Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits in History of Finland
I noticed you had reverted my edits in the article History of Finland based on a web source (Mongabay.com) you found that contains some of the same text. However, if you look at the US Government Country Studies (specifically the one about Finland) available at Library of Congress, you will notice that the text at Mongabay.com actually comes from the Country Studies (they also acknowledge it themselves at the page footer). As works of the federal government, the Country Studies are public domain, which is attributed in the reference. Accordingly, I kindly ask to return the content to the page. --Tungsten (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Arabian Publishers United copyvio
How is it "odd"? Just curious.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it is almost a word-for-word copy of a site about an organization, but the organization name was replaced with a different name. IMO, worse than a copyvio, because many copyvios are incontinent misunderstandings of what is permissible. This appears to be deliberate deceit.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's pretty shady- It kind of sounds like something a sock would do, or at least someone who has knowledge of policy and is trying to game the system.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 01:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The latter sounds more likely.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

EDM
[http://dcproductions1.biz/electronic-pop.html. deadlink provided] as support for copyvio, the added content you are disputing is actually reuse of existing Wikipedia content. Possible the source you believe holds copyright originally used content from Wikipedia's synth-pop article. Acousmana (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * now it appears your change cannot be undone? complete waste of editing time, really dumb use of powers. Acousmana (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I work on a lot of pages, some context would help.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Context = this edit on this article.
 * Can you please provide rationale for your actions because they don't make any sense based on the comments you offered. You stated there is a copyvio and provided a link to a dead website?
 * The content added is identical to that found here, so presumably it should also be deleted? Acousmana (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you call this: this site

a dead link; it open for me. (I do note that it took about three seconds to load. Is it possible you have a slower connection and have to wait a little while?)

I do agree that the material on that page matches what is in the Wikipedia page Synth-pop. It appears that they re-used the material from Wikipedia article which is acceptable, but they failed to properly attribute it, which is not (or if they did, I missed it.)

You are permitted to reuse material from one Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article under certain conditions. However, if that is done it must be properly attributed.

The following page has general information about copying within Wikipedia: Copying within Wikipedia.

I'll repeat here the relevant section about what must be included in the edit summary in such a case:

"At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution."

I realize you are relatively new and did not know about our requirements for reuse of material. However there are several of us that work on tracking down potential copyright violations. There are several hundred potential items identified every single week.

This is one tool used to look for such problems. As you can see, there have been tens of thousands of cases reviewed and handled: Leaderboard.

I'll speak only for myself, but I'm confident that the other editors working in this area would concur — seeing an edit summary identifying that the material was copied is extremely useful, and helps avoid the false positives arising from the close matching of material to mirror sites especially those that failed to properly attribute the source. Without including an edit summary, you are essentially saying that the words included in the edit are your own words (unless set of by quote marks or a quote box), which was not the case.

In many cases, edits are reversible, but I'm going to request that you redo the edit rather than having me reverse it. The inclusion of that material might be appropriate in that article — it seems likely, but I don't know the subject matter. If I reverse the edit then it becomes my responsibility. If you redo it, it's your responsibility. Second, reversing the edit would not create the proper edit summary to help flag the material so that it doesn't get reverted again by some other editor monitoring copyright issues.

I hope you will appreciate our interest in making sure that Wikipedia is free of copyright violations. I'm happy to see that you are interested in improving our articles and I hope this incident won't turn you off. Good luck. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you for your explanation, that page did not load yesterday at all yesterday, 'http://dcproductions1.biz/electronic-pop.html' resulted in a parked domain page, today, it works? in future I will attribute correctly.
 * the question then is, what are you prepared to do about notifying the website's owner with respect their use of copyrighted material? Would seem to be a double standard to police within Wikipedia but ignore those who present article content - outside of Wikipedia - as their own.

Acousmana (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Town of Dundee, FL - March 21st Page Reverts
First, I apologize that it has taken me a month to notice your reverting of most of my content updates on my page. I also want to apologize for any perceived copyright infringement. I serve as the Town Clerk for the Town of Dundee, FL and was tasked with updating the Wikipedia page to better compare with our surrounding communities. I am the legally recognized holder of the Town Seal, Town Logo, and Town Copyright, including all content I wrote for the Town website which you referenced in your reverting of the different content sections.

However, only the history part of the updates were taken from my content from the Town website. The other material updates or additions were just simple facts about the Town and were even cited in several places when taken from non-town owned sources. If possible, what do I need to do to get my edits back in to the Wiki page? If it is absolutely necessary, I can cite myself for the history section of the website. Thank you very much for your time.
 * I will respond soon, although I've had a busy day, so it may be in the morning. If you look at the message above,t here are some similar issues. I'll write up a response to that post, which is overdue, and I suspect most of the content will apply to you. It is slightly more complicated than you might guess, but we'll sort it out.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the post above has a similar issue. I'll include the same response here:

It might seem obvious that if an individual is an author of some words, that individual ought to be able to use those words in a Wikipedia article without any problems. However, there are three reasons it isn't as simple as it sounds.

The first issue is the identification of the individual. It might be the case that some individual has written some words, that we have a user with the same name. Iin most cases we will allow any user to choose just about any name without requiring proof that the name is the real name. We don't even require real names. In the case of an individual using a real name, we generally don't take any steps to ensure that it is their real name except in the case where the individual wants to use real name which is famous (roughly speaking, has an entry in Wikipedia in that name), in which case we do need to take some steps to ensure that name used matches the real name of the user.

A second issue, and this is typically the most important issue, is that the original author of the words might be the copyright holder at the time they were written, but it is quite common for the copyright license to be transferred to another individual or organization. If the words are written on commission, this may happen automatically and simultaneously. Whenever someone writes something that ends up being the official statement of an organization, such as the "about us" section or something similar, it is almost always the case the organization has arranged for the transfer of copyright from the original author to the organization itself. It is often the case that someone writes something for publication either in a general magazine or academic journal. In many of those cases the acceptance of the work includes the transfer of the copyright. While this does not happen in 100% of cases, it is common enough that we have to operate as if it might have happened, and ask for confirmation from the website holder or the journal or the magazine or wherever the words appear that the copyright is retained by the original author. It can happen but it's rare. In either case, to reuse the words in a Wikipedia article requires the explicit licensing of the material from the copyright holder and this is very often not going to happen, because the required license agreement is rather broad.

The third issue is not quite a copyright problem. Words written in Wikipedia have to conform to a neutral point of view, and it is quite common that words written for other venues have a different tone. It may not be that they are wrong or inaccurate, but the text is typically supportive of an organization or an idea, and may not be as balanced and neutral as is appropriate for Wikipedia. In the case that someone wrote the words for a website or in connection with some idea, the author probably needs to review our conflict of interest guideline, which sets out some requirements for editing in the situation. In many cases it may prohibit such editing, but at a minimum, it will require some declaration of the existence of a conflict of interest and possibly the existence of a paid editing situation.

I tried to write this generically. We can now further discuss to what extent any of these issues apply to you specifically.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)