User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 93

Janice Turner
Hi,

Now that she’s apologised for falsely accusing him of a crime (automatic libel in the UK) it is definitely noteworthy; the Wikipedia article on The Times mentionsits journalists who had libel issues. I trust the addition now stays.Alterrabe (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Draft: Jeff Hunt (music producer)
Hi Sphilbrick,

I've been notified of another speedy deletion of content, though the material in question has been granted a Creative Commons license to use the material on the page in question, at https://jeffhunt.org/about/

Please do not delete as I am working with the artist in question, and he has granted creative commons rights to the passages referenced.

Thank you! Alaks Hovel 16:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talk • contribs)
 * Please see User_talk:Ronhjones-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are working with the artist in question, you should also read: WP:COI-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please also see my related comments at Draft_talk:Jeff_Hunt_(music_producer) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi S Philbrick, the page in question has been updated to read 3.0 Unported License. Are we good? Alaks Hovel 16:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, with respect to copyright. There may be questions about use of that site and whether it qualifies as an independent reference, but I will leave that for others. Thanks for taking care of us I know it's kind of a pain, and I wish someone, not sure whether it's Wikimedia or Creative Commons would resolve the incompatibility which led to this problem but at least this specific instance is resolved.


 * FYI, I know the article has popped up at least once again in the CopyPatrol Report, and I accepted it, but it's possible that some other person will respond differently. The way the report is constructed it looks for comparisons of wording but doesn't and can't analyze the license so the reviewer has to affirmatively look for the license. That's supposed to be what happens, but I'm just giving you a heads up there's a chance it will be missed. Please ping me if that happens.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've removed that content, as not appropriate to an encyclopaedia ("documents that dramatically rewrote the history of American minimalism"? Maybe so, but not here, thank you!). Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources, not on what people say about themselves. Nor does Wikipedia tolerate WP:promotion of any kind, including that kind. If you want to write about Hunt, please start by making a proper paid editor disclosure on your user page and the talk-page of the draft. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Broadband Commission Targets
Hi, you removed my section on the broadband commission targets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Broadband_Commission_for_Sustainable_Development&oldid=prev&diff=853106379&diffmode=source

It's actually licences under CC as is indicated on the page.

Would it be possible to revert this?

Bquast (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The site did an abysmal job of recording the copyright status. The entry at the bottom of the page where almost all copyright notices reside is:
 * © ITU and UNESCO


 * However, I now see they dropped a note in the middle of the page suggesting that some of the content not clearly identified is CC BY 4.0. I'll AGF that it applies to the material you copied.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, abysmal job on that. Thank you for AGF and the revert. Bquast (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

OpenVPN - 1 more needed :)
Hello Sphilbrick, thank you for taking care of this copyvio issue. But the original insertion of this content (855911180) with + 1,107 bytes does need a revdel too please. GermanJoe (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed it, thanks for the heads up.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Rilum
Hi Sphillbrick and Greetings from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rilum (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Request
I found a draft Draft:4ocean and it had 44 percent copyright violations (text wise) according to Earwig's tool. I CSD'd it (not only for copyright but also for sounding like a company ad) it but the author of the draft twice reverted me. So i rewrote the draft, removing the copyright text and advertising tone and let the CSD remain removed. But maybe you can rev del all the revisions which had the 44 percent copyright?? I don't know if that's enough for a rev del and I know how copyright is a major issues. thanks JC7V -constructive zone  00:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✅ S Philbrick  (Talk)  00:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you JC7V -constructive zone  00:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 29, June – July 2018  Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
 * New partners
 * Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
 * Wikimania
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Titodutta (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

AZDPS page
Hello,

Thank you for the feedback on our page. Our users on here are employed by the Arizona Department of Public Safety and are responsible for the Department's website (azdps.gov). The information in question is content taken from our own website that we originally authored. How do we go about reverting the unpublishing of our Wikipedia content we attempted to post yesterday?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamesdps (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , There are two problems. Because you are closely associated with the subject you have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI, which, in a nutshell, places significant restrictions on direct editing although it does encourage posting of suggestions on the article talk page. In other words, you should not be directly adding this material. The second problem is licensing. The page doesn't have a clear copyright indication so I'm not clear on the copyright status. We cannot use wording unless it is freely licensed and I haven't yet seen a clear statement that it is freely licensed. Do you know the copyright status?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a note regarding the copyright notice left on the website, it is possible to copy content from a page, but it must have a disclosure that it is free to use. More information is at WP:DONATETEXT. Primefac (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an option. I've tended not to push that because it means they have to jump through OTRS hoops (and we have a many week backlog for OTRS permissions), plus it is awkward to jump through all those hoops and then have another editor decide that the words aren't appropriately encyclopedic. But it is an option.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Picc-vic line map.jpg
Please reconsider your speedy deletion of a version of this file - I would think either a restoration of the original version or out right deletion is the appropriate course of action. It would appear that a bot did an automatic resize and then you deleted the original. In doing so you destroyed the free use rationale as the station names are no longer readable and so it no longer illustrates the route. Indeed the free use rationale for the original image said it was as small as it could be and still read the names - something I'd have hoped you would have noticed before doing the speedy delete. I'm not sure this ever met free use criteria as it could easily be replaced by someone making their own version of the network so as I say I think outright deletion may be the appropriate outcome. Dpmuk (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , The speedy deletion applied to the prior versions of the file were not being used. They weren't in use, so I think the deletion followed policy. Your concern appears to be that the original image may have been as small as possible to be legible, yet large enough that it fell within the parameters of the relevant bot. This is clearly an issue to be taken up with the bot operator. It may require some fundamental rethinking regarding how we handle such situations. My understanding is that the bot automatically resizes when an image exceeds some resolution (whose value I am not immediately recalling). Such an approach is not very workable if there are legitimate exceptions to the upper bound so someone has to work out some approach, such as to add a parameter to the file image to indicate that it qualifies as an exception and then the bot could search for parameter. However, I suspect our technical experts could come up with a workable option.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it the more I question whether the image deserves to be an exception to our resolution limitation.


 * Let me start by saying I'm aware of Non-free use rationale guideline, but I'm also aware that there are a number of editors with significantly more experience in this area.


 * Let me illustrate my concern with an analogy. Suppose you were to examine the image in the INFOBOX for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band:File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg becasue you were trying to recall the words written on the little girls top (Welcome the Rolling Stones). The resolution is too low to make them out (at least for me). If you were to argue that the resolution needs to be higher so that this important aspect of this cover could be read, I would respond that the image is subject to copyright, and we are allowed to use a version of the image under fair use rules, and the resolution is sufficient to identify the work alone not sufficient to closely examine all details of the work. No one is going to look at the low resolution image and mistake it for a different album cover — it adequately and uniquely identifies the album.


 * In contrast, you want this image, not to uniquely identify the promotional leaflet published (for which the reduced resolution is sufficient), but to serve as a map, which requires a high enough resolution to read the station stops. But I'll argue that a sufficient resolution to act as a map is not fair use. Arguably, that's expropriation of the purpose of the leaflet. If we want a map we should create a map and I see that the article Picc-Vic_tunnel does have an editor created map, Which does not have the copyright problem.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly I do not necessarily want a higher resolution version of the file kept - all I want is to solve the issue of the currently useless image in the article. In my first post I said I thought there were two options, one of which was outright deletion.  I did not ask for a restoration, I asked you to reconsider.  As I stated in my original post I am also fairly certain this can not qualify as free use since it's clearly replaceable by someone making their own version.  However at least with the higher resolution image the free use rationale would at least make sense and the image would serve it's purpose in the article.  As things stand, with the loser resolution version, there is no way we can claim it's fair use with that rationale and so in my opinion the current version is a WP:F9 speedy deletion (the original version would not be a valid F9 since it has a claim of fair use but I don't believe anyone has claimed fair use for this version).


 * As an ex-admin (who resigned in good standing) I was under the impression that admins were meant to review speedy deletions to make sure they were reasonable. To give an example if someone replaced this image with a new version of something completely different then the original would be unused but no one would accept that was a reasonable speedy delete.  A quick look at the fair use statement should have at least raised doubts on the original speedy delete. Dpmuk (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You and I appear to differ regarding the responsibilities of an admin in the situation. According to F5:This applies to images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain and that are not used in any article. That clearly applies. It sounds like you think the admin reviewing the situation is expected to do substantially more and frankly I'm not entirely clear what you expect the admin to look at or for what purpose. Are you aware that there were literally tens of thousands of these images needing deletion? It would be an absurd waste of time to spend many minutes on each situation given that it clearly meets the criteria on the chance that a thorough review of all relevant facts might result in…? Even if the thorough review resulted in a decision that the deletion ought to be overturned, it would be far more efficient to carry out the speedy of the tens of thousands of images and do a manual revert in the very small handful of cases that might require reversion. In other words, I think my action was warranted even if you've identified a rare situation that requires reversion and I haven't yet seen evidence that it should be reverted.
 * You state that you want to solve the issue of the useless image. You're free to propose it for deletion, although an easier option is to simply remove it from the article. If it is truly useless (which sounds like you agree that it's intended as a map not as identification of the leaflet). If it stays removed, it will automatically be deleted sometime.
 * I have concerns with the current rationale, but I see this is a close call and I'd want a debate with some knowledgeable editors to determine whether a valid purpose can be written. If the goal is to generate a map, then we are on the same page and this image should not be used. I haven't looked closely at the article but claim purpose is "discussing the history of the project". That image might be relevant to a discussion of the history, although it doesn't seem to be used that way.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd point you at the relevant it of the deletion process page - "Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version and to determine whether there was a cut-and-paste move involved, and search for other information which may impact the need or reason for deletion...". To me that implies an admin should clearly do some due diligence before deleting.  I would't expect any admin to spend a long time on this but a quick glance at the fair use summary doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances.  But I think on that we have to agree to differ.
 * I asked you reconsider because, to me, just outright removing it seemed an end around process (we've made this picture useless at what we intended it for so now we'll remove it from the article and request speedy deletion). That said I hadn't really considered, until this discussion, that the route diagram pretty much duplicates it's fair use rationale so there's no need to use it in the article for that reason.  Hence I can now feel justified in removing it as it will no longer feel an end around process. Dpmuk (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news
 * Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
 * Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says . An example is   which is now.
 * Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

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

Warwick School
I contributed several improvements and additions to the article on Warwick School, which were almost immediately removed. I cannot see that I can violate my own copyright! I wrote the material for both the Old Warwickians website and the Wikipedia page. G N Frykman (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual for someone to express surprise when they see an edit reverted and it involves a copyright issue and they happen to be the author of the original words. However, the reversion was not an error.


 * There are typically two issues that need to be addressed. We want to respect the rights of copyright holders, and while you may be the copyright holder, we have no way of knowing that. Even if there is documentation somewhere showing that the copyright holder happens to have your username, we didn't require proof of identification when you chose that username so we don't know that you are that person. In addition, it isn't simply sufficient to state that you are the copyright holder and therefore permitted to use the material, you have to affirmatively provide a permission statement. Sometimes, people are surprised at the broad nature of the permission statement, and we want to make sure they know what they are agreeing to, when they provide the free license.


 * A sample permission statement and instructions on how to file it can be found here:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I am the school archivist, and I'm expected to be the main author of scholarly articles about the school. I respect your position, and will try to fill in the permission statement. Best wishes. G N Frykman (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A second reason for being especially careful also may apply here. It is not unusual for someone to be the author of some words which are written on behalf of some other person or some organization, and not fully realize that the copyright of the words is the contracting organization. In fact, it is the norm. An organization typically wants control over the text of their own site, so the usual situation is that the copyright is with the organization not with a specific person who wrote the words. In this case, the school is asserting copyright over the words, so either we need documentation from the school explaining that their claim is an error, or we need the permission statement filed by an individual at the school with the authority to make the release. The person might be you, but we need to have it carried out formally.


 * Sorry for the complications, but we respect copyright holders and want to make sure their rights are respected.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now looked at the source material and see your name on it which unfortunately means I have to raise a third concern. It is virtually certain that you are associated with the school in some way, so you have a conflict of interest. Please see: wp:coi. You should not be directly editing the article page, but you're more than welcome to propose suggestions or improvements on the article talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Christian terrorism
Hello. About my edition in Christian terrorism, when I wrote in Cristero War section I made it copying almost all to the main article in WP. I didn't knew that this text was copyrighted. Xarucoponce (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're saying. If you are saying that you made an edit to Christian terrorism, copying material that had been in Cristero War, That's permitted, but you have to follow the guidelines outlined in Copying within Wikipedia. If that is the case, I'll also note that I've complained to the developers of our copyright detection software that this type of situation is missed and results and false positives but nothing has yet been done about it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the copyright issue?
Knoxville: Summer of 1915 - most of what you deleted I wrote myself. deisenbe (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you write it and have it published somewhere? I included a source in my reversion, although it's my guess that the site with the material borrowed it from somewhere else probably inappropriately. It is relevant to know where it is first published. Although you may be the editor, one issue to explore is whether it was published in a forum that requires you to transfer the copyright to them. My guess is that this is the case, but it's a step we always have to check when someone claims that there is no copyright violation because they wrote the words. The second issue that must be addressed is how to determine that you are indeed the author. We allow anyone to create almost any username, so it isn't enough to find that the words were written by someone with your username. If they have been published, then to reuse them as is will require that you only fill out a permission statement and send it in to OTRS so that we can confirm that the person issuing the license is the author of the words. There's more information at Donating_copyrighted_materials, but I'll be happy to help you with the process. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are unpublished. Get me for OR if you want to, but I think I’m doing more good than harm. I strongly disagree with WP’s OR policy. If it’s relevant, I have pretty good credentials as a researcher. deisenbe (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. If it's unpublished, how did I find it here? (As previously noted I'm not sure this is the original publication but it certainly qualifies as a publication.) On the chance that there is a terminology issue, published doesn't only mean set in type and issued in a printed publication such as a magazine or book, and includes publication in online sites, including chat sites blogs and more formal published sites. I didn't raise the issue of No original research—if you disagree with our policy, you're welcome to open up a discussion to change it. However, that's an aside, as I don't see the relevance to this discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The text you mention from writewww.com is based on the Wikipedia article, as is said at the beginning. They’re copying what I wrote. deisenbe (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps a lot. Let me think about what to do next.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I now understand your OR comment which didn't make sense to me earlier. I have restored the edit which should not be construed as "blessing" the edit. I have only address the copyright issue which is a nonissue. Whether it belongs in the article is not something I analyzed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This situation is one that is fairly common and has the potential of creating false positives and our copyright detection software.

The general sequence of events is as follows:
 * 1) Some editor add some material to an article
 * 2) Some external site (call it site X) copies the content. They may do it permissibly with attribution or may not indicate the source
 * 3) Material is removed from the Wikipedia article for some reason (it might be vandalism, or it might be a disagreement that the material is appropriate for the article)
 * 4) After a passage of time, the material is added back to the article
 * 5) The software detection program looks at the addition of text, and identifies it as being identical or close to text at site X
 * 6) Someone (like me) looks at the reports and has to ascertain whether it is a copyright violation

Situations like this pop up in the copyright software several times every day. In most cases, the editor adding the material for the second time explains in the edit summary something like "material being re-added because it was inappropriately removed earlier". Anytime we see an edit summary like that, we know to check to see if the material was then Wikipedia before it was copied to site X, and that report is marked resolved with no action. If the edit summary is silent on that issue, it may turn out to be a false positive because in fact the material added in the second edit does match some material found at site X. As an aside, I've asked the developers of software to try to identify these issues more clearly to avoid the false positives but that hasn't yet happened so until it happens the solution is to use edit summaries that summarize the edit.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So would you please restore what you deleted? Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Already done before I posted here.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Todd Greenberg
I have no idea why you deleted my edit. There was nothing in the edit that attacked Todd Greenberg or made the article bad. It was all factual and there were references. It leads me to believe one of two things. You either are a Canterbury supporter or you have nothing better to do than delete content that people put on Wikipedia for no good reason.
 * You are a relatively new editor but I would've guessed you have been around long enough to know about edit summaries. If not, review the edit summary explaining my edit and respond accordingly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Titodutta (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, VERY interesting.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Jeff Hunt (music producer)
Hi, I have since referenced reliable third-party sources in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Hunt_(music_producer)) and am waiting for the Draft page to be made life. Is there something I can do to expedite the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakshovel (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors willing to help new editors hang out at the teahouse, where questions like this are answered:Teahouse/Questions-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright issues on "Dumfries YMCA FC" page edits??
Please, I will be more grateful if you can enlighten me on the copyright issue for the recent deletion of my contributions to the aforementioned page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike boyd88 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have looked further and it is you that has your wires crossed here. The text entered to the above page comes from the clubs own official website. The other website (the one you quoted), took it from the club... not the other way about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike boyd88 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking.
 * The material added clearly matches that at this site, which not only doesn't have an acceptable license (at least that I could find) but it also has a clear indication that it is subject to full copyright.


 * It is not uncommon that someone explains that it is okay for them to use this material because either they are the editor, or they have the permission of the organization or some similar reason. That applies, let's discuss because there are steps one can take but we cannot simply accept such assurances.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I had written the above response before seeing your additional note so I dropped it in and in the way I'll respond to your more recent point in a few minutes.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There is (in my opinion) a flaw in our software for copyright detection, one I've asked to have fixed to no avail. I don't know whether it applies here but your response suggests that it might be relevant.


 * If someone adds material to a Wikipedia article, there are many thousands of sites which copy such material. Occasionally the material in the Wikipedia article is removed and after a passage of time replaced in the article and our software sees the link between the added material and an external site which had copied from Wikipedia. That's a false positive. I'm not yet sure whether that's what happened here. You said that the text comes from the "clubs own official website". Unless that site provided a free license for the text, it is still a copyright violation. (If the club did provide a free license there are some other problems, but will address those only if that's the situation.)


 * I have seen some new editors under the impression that it is acceptable to use material from an organization's official website. That's almost never true. Let me know if that's what happened and I can elaborate.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)