User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 91

Shaun Walker
Shaun Walker is linked from a number of Wikpedia pages related to the DotNetNuke open source project which he founded in 2003. However the links redirect people to the National Alliance Party - a white supremacist and white separatist political organization to which he has absolutely no affiliation. This linkage is causing a defamation of character for Shaun Walker. It is also creating confusion as there is no obvious reason why a person's name is redirecting to a page for a political organization. The recent edits to the page which were intended to clarify the identity of Shaun Walker were removed due to a copyright issue with http://www.dnnsummit.org/Blog/dnn-summit-2018-keynotes-announced - however, the content identified is the public biography for Shaun Walker which was originally authored by him and has been used in every online publication to which he has been cited for many years. How should this public biography be modified to appease the editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.46.242 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me start my saying I know nothing about this individual. The fact that it may have been used in multiple places does not make it usable in Wikipedia. I saw no evidence that it is freely licensed, but even if freely licensed, if it is authored by him it is wholly unsuitable as text for a Wikipedia article. Such an article needs to be written by editors who are independent of the subject, using reliable, published independent sources, which means his public biography doesn't even qualify as a source. I have no idea whether his name should be a redirct to that organization, but that's somethng to raise somewhere other than my talk page. Normally I would suggest the talk page associated with the name, but talk pages of redirects don't get a lot of traffic, so maybe the talk page of the organization is the best place.
 * I'm seriously under the weather at the moment, if any tps's want to weigh in with advice, please do.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Suriya 37
Hi Sphilbrick. I am posting here because you added a welcome template to User talk:Swaminathansmes, but then the user moved the page to the article namespace. It appears they are working on draft, but it's nowhere near ready for the mainspace. I'm not quite sure how to move this back or whether it should be moved to the username space or the draft namespace. Would you mind taking a look at it? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very unde the weather (see above, unfortunately worse). I took a quick glance, and I suspect it's straightforward. but requires more brain cells than I have avaialble at the moment. Ping me in a couple days if I don't follow up on my own.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. Hope you feel better soon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved it back, and provided an explanation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sphilbrick. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I did it right but I'll sort it out with an expert.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  21:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?
You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 28, April – May 2018  Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * # 1Bib1Ref
 * New partners
 * Rock's Backpages
 * Invaluable
 * Termsoup
 * User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
 * Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Why You Mark Useless Copyrights issues
Hello, How can you prove my article Umm-e-Haniya has copy right issues.If you don't have any proper reason than don't revert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * copyright means that user copy material from any other site then upload it to wiki. wikipidea need own wordings. In other words, you can use your own wordings but not plot which is available on other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.44.233.59 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you Lillyput4455? If so, I explained in the edit summary:
 * Copyright issue re https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdZNFVCDo_1f8zD0IYwfQXq6XhrfIz8dF.
 * If you think i"m mistaken, and I do occasionally make mistakes, tell me what you think I missed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Recreating Dulce (singer)
Please allow me to recreate a Wikipedia page for Filipino singer Dulce, but this time I will say it in my own words, and not copying from my references. Thank you. Migs Bustos Pogi (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Go for it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

May I copy your formatting for contributions?
I like the displays you use on your User page for the articles you've created/contributed to. Would you mind if I copy your formatting for use on my page? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you really needed to ask, but I appreciate it, go for it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Copper in Renewable Energy
Hello Sphilbrick. Just got a message from you about copyrights. All new statements are referenced. Let me know if you see something that needs to be revised. Thank you. Enviromet (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll rewrite these two contributions paying keen attention to make sure there is no copyright infringement. Thank you. Enviromet (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes..it looks like I need more information from you to understand the copyright problem. I thought that an entry or two needed to be worked on but now it see a lot more was deleted from several sections written today and additional references cited to strengthen existing material and it's difficult to know where to begin because it's all gone now. So let me better understand the problem before I continue to move forward. It took a lot of time to research and work on this today and I can't revise it cause it's all gone. Enviromet (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. You mentioned that all statements are referenced — that's necessary but not sufficient. With some exceptions (material in the public domain, or short quotes clearly marked), material should be written in your own words. Some editors have the mistaken belief that changing a few words here and there is sufficient to avoid copyright problems. That is not the case — see Close paraphrasing for more details.
 * I'm sorry that so much material was removed. Is the general practice of editors reviewing copyright problems to use an action called rollback, which removes all consecutive edits by a single editor. It is good practice to compose edits in an off-line editor to help save any material that you might wish to reuse that is not in conflict with copyright issues.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Gogo Dodo
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
 * A request for comment closed with a consensus that the promising draft template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news
 * Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
 * Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (Codemirror-icon.png) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
 * IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous
 * Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

John Salley
Hello, Sphilbrick. Rookie question: my edits were reverted due to copyright issues; if I had written the text in my own words, but still cited the factual reference material, would that have been acceptable? Or is there something about the two sources I used that means they should never be referenced in Wikipedia? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsigler (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Louis Mountbatten
(cur | prev) 16:30, 3 July 2018‎ Sphilbrick (talk | contribs)‎. . (101,282 bytes) (-2,814)‎. . (Reverted good faith edits by JMvanDijk (talk): Unsourced (info copied from FR maybe Copyright issue but definitely not a reliable source). (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

Why do you feel its necessary to re-reference material already referenced in the main article? JMvanDijk (talk)
 * I know of two situations where editing practices permit the omission of references for information:
 * when a proper lead is written which summarizes key points made (and referenced) in the main body of the article
 * When material is included in an INFOBOX that is also included (and referenced) in the main article


 * I'm not aware of any editing advice suggesting that if material is present in one section of the main article and repeated in another section of the main article that references are not needed. It might be a plausible thing to discuss but until such time as it is community consensus, I don't believe that it is considered a good practice.


 * In fact, I often create awards and honors sections for some sports figures and it is not unusual that a particular award might be mentioned in the main body as well as in a section for awards and honors. I always include a reference in both sections.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Eudoxia of Moscow
Edits removed without proper explanation, since it's not explained what possible copyright issues there are re: quoted source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.147.17.75 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided an explanation:
 * Copyright issue re https://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/05/17/101407-st-euphrosyne-the-princess-eudocia-of-moscow


 * Let me know if you need additional information.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is not explanation, since you didn't explain anywhere what copyright issue exactly you have regarding this particular source and why this source can't be given as reference for information in the article. What copyright issue do you have with this source? It's the site of Orthodox Church in America. Meanwhile, the lady in question (Eudoxia) is Orthodox Saint.


 * Nothing was said suggesting that it is inappropriate as a source. However, the material is subject to copyright, which would be true even if there wasn't a notice at the bottom of the page but there is such a notice:
 * Copyright © 1996–2018. All rights reserved.
 * Material must be written in your own words in most cases. In some cases, a suitably short excerpt might be quoted but there has to be a good reason for using a quote rather than your own words. See Copyright-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm...
Whilst you expressed some dis-satisfaction with my closure, I'm afraid that the current scenario falls in one of the very few situations, where-in trying to discount !votes and opinions from one particular side, because they are supporting something non-neutrally worded It may be noted that the community isn't at a consensus as to whether neutrality be maintained when the project is supposedly under some form of threat (or so do the WMF speak), as multiple !votes will show.Some have explicitly supported a non-neutral banner and it's not my job as a closer to evaluate who is correct as to the broader purposes/locus of the movement.Also, deciding whether something is non-neutral isn't as clear-cut, as it seem(s) from a glance:)(under the guise of weighing !votes) will clearly fell afoul of prohibitions on super-voting.A way out might be to propose a general RFC to blanket-prohibit WP from taking any non-neutral stand, however serious the issue might be.....Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 15:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out to me. I am unhappy with the conclusion, as you could probably tell but I'd like to make sure you understand my unhappiness is more directed at the voters than your closure. I confess that as I looked at the numbers, I saw both option one and option three with solid majorities, and I hoped that a neutrality issue would provide a rationale for option three over option one. In fact, while I was composing my's response, which was going to make that point, I realized halfway through that I was essentially advocating a super vote. I don't support super votes. I modified my response but perhaps not enough. I do think neutrality is important but that should be 100% directed at the voters not the closer.
 * I don't want anyone to think that I misunderstand the importance of this issue. I've read suggestions that if enacted, it may shut down the ability of Wikipedia to use copyrighted sources as references. I don't underestimate this as an issue, but frankly, my hope is that if the provision is enacted and that turns out to be true, that Wikipedia simply says "okay find we will comply" and Wikipedia shuts down in Europe. Perhaps I overestimate the importance of Wikipedia, but I think that act might wake some people up.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your clarification.And, I understand your's and other's discontent with such banners despite the probable effects of the legislation. &#x222F; WBG converse 06:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

speedy deletion of workspacefreiburg
You seem to have deleted ourWorkspacefreiburg. We were working on a translation project. we had copied parts from the German page on the city Freiburg and were translating it, in order to upload it to the real English page on Freiburg, in that case with the proper citations) --Superpanda55 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As a minor technical note, I didn't delete it, I nominated it for deletion.

The article was flagged by our copyright detection software. One of the challenges we have (and I've asked for a solution but it hasn't yet been enabled), is it when our software detection program matches a non-Wikipedia site which itself is a copy from Wikipedia article, it doesn't identify that useful piece of information.

That said, a copyright detection software doesn't automatically remove articles. Human reviewers, such as myself, will look to see if the editor has identified that the material is copied from another Wikipedia article as required by our attribution policies.

That wasn't done, so it technically is a violation of copyright policy even if it is a copy from an existing Wikipedia article.

Is my opinion that it is not good practice to work on the translation in article space. It would be better to do the translation work off-line and then upload the translated article along with the required notification that it is a translation of an existing article.

While it may be acceptable to do the translation work in the article space (because my opinion about best practices doesn't necessarily reflect required guidelines), it is still a requirement that the attribution be present in every version of the article.

Please see: Copying_within_Wikipedia

The best practices regarding copying within Wikipedia, although I will repeat that it would be much better to do the translation off-line.

I don't plan to remove the nomination for removal because it is technically correct. If you can cure the problems before someone carries out the deletion, let me know and I'll remove the nomination and do a revision deletion on the versions up until the guidelines for attribution are incorporated.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User Digijio
Hi Sphilbrick. I see you did some cleanup of at. Digijio had already been warned about copyrights on June 16, but has continued in at least three articles from what I've seen so far. Block? --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I contributed to the ANI thread.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Ronz (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion requests
I'd like to request the undeletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combo Ninos, which you deleted per G13.

Also, could you please undelete Combo Niños as well? It was a PROD, and the deleting administrator is no longer an admin. Modernponderer (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Followup - Well, it was my intention to do both, and I actually thought I did both. However, as I looked through the history I see that the AFC page which was deleted as a G13, was moved to Draft:Combo Ninos, which in turn had been moved to Combo Niños, So my restoration of that last entry covers both requests, I believe. I still know that I clicked undelete on one of the intermediate steps so I don't know whether I have some unfinished business to clean up but that's not your concern.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, User:RHaworth merged the histories of the pages right after you undeleted them. So I think everything was done correctly here, unless there's something left behind that I can't see of course. Modernponderer (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would explain it. Thanks. (And thanks to User:RHaworth).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pajero edits
My edits were also reverted due to copyright issues, now the technical specifications are copied on every Pajero forum in existence originally posted on Outerlimits4x4.com by Frank Zanetti. We had them on most of our original forums way back, my friends and I have posted most of this stuff and reposted on newer forums just because it gets asked so commonly. These are just the sizes of brakes and axles from the factory service manuals, do i need to reformat how they are typed completely in order for them to stick because they're on all these forums? Still new at this but i'd like to also add that most of my other edits were deleted along with the specifications from the service manuals. Is that on purpose or just because i made those edits at the same time like changing Mitsubishi Jeep from successor to predecessor? If that's the case i'd like to revert to save the other edits, delete the specifications until i can figure out how to add them properly.

Thanks, Toasty Montero (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have copied technical specifications from service manuals into forums, have you arrange with the copyright holder of the factory service manuals for permission to post this information, or was it originally published with a free license permitting you to use it?


 * Even if this is true, I need to see evidence that the original source had an acceptable license or that you have been given permission in such a way that makes it compatible with usage in Wikipedia and even then we need proper attribution unless it turns out to be public domain material which I highly doubt.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I hadn't thought of it like that, so at what point does something like this where the actual physical size of something can be posted in an acceptable manner? For example we already have engine cc, power output, wheelbase etc. Do we assume that info just comes from when the manufacturer was actively selling these machines? I would like to add brake and axle physical sizes to show the changes during the years. People ask me questions like what year got the bigger brakes or axles. Could i add something like "With the addition of the 3.5 DOHC, drive train strength was increased by upgrading crown gears to 9.5" and axles to 31 spline." tucked into the main article? Or leave the sizes out and just state that brakes and or axles were upgraded? Toasty Montero (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good Points - I'll put together a response shortly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll start by mentioning that I'm still a little bit under the weather so I feel like there must be a simple response to your question but I'm not immediately recalling it. I'm going to ping two copyright experts to get more input.

The immediate issue is this edit (and a similar subsequent one). The broader issue is copyright of facts.

At one extreme, if one looks up the displacement of an engine and cites the value, that is a factual value and the original publisher of that value cannot keep someone else from publishing that value through the use of copyright (although they might be able to insist on attribution, and certainly we do).

At the other extreme, one could not simply post a verbatim copy of a factory service manual on the argument that it is simply a collection of uncopyrightable facts. That's partially true, because a factory service annual is not simply a table of values, it will contain prose sentences and paragraphs that show evidence of originality and could be written in more than one way. (I'm assuming but haven't verified that factory service manuals are typically not freely licensed.)

The issue is where one draws the line.

Imagine that the factory service manual has a lot of prose paragraphs but also includes a large table summarizing all of the numerical specs of a vehicle. I don't think we would permit the wholesale copying of that table (although I'm on shaky ground here), even though we would permit the extraction of any single value to post in an article. Where I become less clear is that while any editor can extract any one value and included in an article, if the editor includes a second value, are they still okay? I think yes. How about a third and a fourth and several more and then for convenience, arrange it into a table? It may be that the structure of the table itself is subject to copyright and if we extract the individual values and create a differently organized table we are okay but I'm not comfortable I know a definitive answer on this issue.

I do think that the actual edit which includes more than simply the numerical values, e.g. "rear leaf springs dropped everything now 3 link coils" has moved well beyond a pure copying of facts, but I would love some feedback on this issue.

This is hardly an original problem so I suspect it has been discussed thoroughly in some copyright forum and perhaps even within Wikipedia but I don't recall such a discussion. (I have been involved in notable discussions involving lists, and the issues are related but not exactly the same.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant pages are the Copyrights policy page and the Plagiarism content guideline. Simple lists of information that contain no creative content are not considered copyrightable. For example, a list of engine sizes available for a specific model of car does not contain any creative content and therefore does not enjoy copyright protection. Where there's been a selection of specifications formatted in to a table or list, you're starting to get into the area where the material is copyrightable, because the author has made choices as to what to leave in and what to omit. The formatting of a table could be copyrightable as well if it contains creative work. Prose descriptions contain creative content and are therefore copyrightable. For example the sentence 'With the addition of the 3.5 DOHC, drive train strength was increased by upgrading crown gears to 9.5" and axles to 31 spline' is copyrightable, and would have to be re-written in your own words if you've copied it directly from your source document. For example you could re-write it as 'The 3.5 DOHC has 9.5-inch crown gears and 31-spline axles, which increases the strength of the drive train over previous models.'Here is a recent example that I worked on. Someone copied data from this or a similar media guide into a series of 67 Wikipedia articles about the Washington State football team. See pages 74–78 of the media guide for the tables that were copied unaltered to Wikipedia. These additions were tagged as being unacceptable copypaste and I agreed with that assessment. To resolve the issue, I, filled out the abbreviations (e.g. changing "S.30" to "September 30" and "H" to "Home"). I re-ordered the columns a little as well. The case was a little borderline so I did not perform revision deletion. So this example gives you a little information as to what level of copying I consider acceptable – that is, not very much at all. Our fair use policy is very strict as well, which means we're not allowed to use quotations from copyright works where we can substitute freely licensed prose that we write ourselves. There's some further reading material and examples at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the general information. I'm familar with some of it, but not all. I hadn't seen the Purdue material or the Eikied study module, both of which are quite helpful.


 * Regarding the specific question, I'd say you may be able to take the purely numerical values if you provide attribution but you cannot simply copy the material that is in prose structure (again assuming the likely scenario that the original document does not have a free license).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah SPhilbrick I knew you would be familiar with most of this but I wished to provide a comprehensive answer to Toasty Montero as well as provide general info for your talk page watchers. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've got this, I really appreciate the help and examples. I think i have a better understanding now. Toasty Montero (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Heydar Aliyev Baku Oil Refinery
Looks like I failed to revdel the edits; thanks for doing it for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help, happy to see you at work.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I commend you for taking the time to create a proper stub from what was mostly a copyright violation. I confess that when I see such a situation I normally propose it for CSD, but if you're willing to take the time to clean it up more power to you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought that only that section was copyright violation, and left the rest intact after some checking, but may be I should have indeed a closer look. The subject is notable, and likely is described also in some Russian-language sources which I can read and many people around can not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Sussex Academic Press
Sp, hoping all is well...I can't remember if it's OK with A7s or not, but if possible, can you userfy this for me? Might be able to do something with it...is that OK? Take care! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See User:Serial Number 54129/Sussex Academic Press-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I'll ping you to give it the once-over before moving it to main space (actulaly, I just found smething else to do, so migt take longer than intended). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)