User talk:Sphilbrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

April editathons at Women in Red[edit]

List of Colors[edit]

I have just found your message to me about my entry of African Violet to the list. The section Color Issues is now missing from the Talk page, so I have no idea what I am supposed to read. The entry is now gone, so logically that would indicate it was contrary to the standards listed under Future initiatives. I have no idea now why I added the entry or why it was removed. However, I trust your judgment. Meanwhile, my own personal Color List project has been on hold for quite some time now due to other higher priority projects, and a mishap in 2017 that deleted many of my files leaving me only with year-old backups. I did check the old files and I have two lists from Wikipedia. The first is the only list showing African Violet. The second states that some colors were edited out. African Violet is not on that list. Even so, the RGB value (#B284BE; 178, 132, 190) assigned to African Violet was unique on all of my lists. It only appears on the Wikipedia list with no other source given. Since there is no entry for the color African Violet on Wikipedia, I suppose it must have been dropped on those grounds. Rod Lockwood (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Rod Lockwood, I see that you are relatively new. FYI, new comments go on the bottom of a talk page. If you go back to the list of colors talk page Talk:List of colors, you won't see my comment because it has been archived. You can either type "African" into the search box on the page, or go directly to archive 3. Caution. the specific discussion has been collapsed so open the section saying something about A-Al. The explanation is there. Feel free to discuss, as we ought to have an entry for African Violet if it can be supported. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Rod Lockwood, As an additional point, it sounds like you are knowledgeable about the subject, so I hope we can work together. I'm in an airport at the moment, so not in a position to track down additional info, but I put together a to-do list somewhere. Let's talk. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately my project is stalled. Basically, I was trying to collect defined colors and organize them, remove the duplicates and give them consistent names (but citing popular alternatives) to use for whenever I needed to create images. My spreadsheets, have pages that include the range of skin and eye colors, coat coloring of horses and dogs, and the like. The project has been on the sidelines for several years now. The only changes made since 2016 has been formating the pages. If you like, I could send you a copy of the file, and the two old files, so you see what you could use from them. I generally write notes in my spreadsheets in order to pick up where I leave off. I do this just because I often hit a snag on a research project and not resume the project for quite some time. (There are places where it is noted that I did not document properly, started losing track of what I was doing, and had to start over.) I also try to make notations on the sources of information. I also have in the first page the rules that I use for color names and what colors I list. Also a full glossary of terms, or at least the ones I find useful. As for African Violet, according to my notes and new pages, I have dropped the color from my official list, but it is on a list of “personal colors” on the Notes pages of the two latest files.
Personally, I am backlogged. Aside from what I have on the computer system, I have forty years of paper that needs to be put into my computer system.
I apologize for the error of what order I commented in. I usually only make grammatical or spelling errors on Wikipedia. Sometimes I make requests for additional information, or clarification of a statement the article, but these are not frequent. Rod Lockwood (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nomination of ASME B73 Pumps[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement.

The web page in question ( is NOT the owner of ASME B73 standards. The product description (in this case, B73.1) comes from the Standard itself, and can be found also on ASME's shop, a source that is cited multiple times in this article.

I am willing to provide you with approval from ASME on the use of this content. Papertd (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Papertd, If the text used in that article is available under one of the acceptable free licenses, I'll be happy to restore the article if you point out where it can be found and I can confirm that there is a free license identified on the source page.
Containing the text does not currently specify a free license but the copyright holder of the material would be willing to provide a free license, that would be the best and easiest next step. An alternative approach is to file a formal permission statement. You can read more about this at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials S Philbrick(Talk) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, while I wait on ASME's webmaster to get back to me, what if I rephrased the article and cited the same sources? Would you be willing to restore the article on the contingency that I do that? I initially did not stray from ASME's wording out of caution as to not misrepresent the scope of the standards. Papertd (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Papertd, I'm leaving for a press conference in a few minutes so I will not be able to do much until I return a few hours from now. I understand your goal not to misrepresent a standard. The standard itself could be placed within quotation marks or in a block quote and cited. I don't recall how much of the article text was the standard itself; we may have an issue if there is not much to the article outside of the standard, but we can address that. I'm not comfortable restoring the article because that would mean restoring what I believe is a copyright violation. However, I have emailed you a copy of the contents. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, thank you for mailing me the original contents of the article. If I repost the article myself with significantly modified wording, would that be acceptable? Please let me know if you would advise anything else regarding the intellectual property or copyright of the article. I want to make sure I proceed correctly. Papertd (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Papertd, It is always best to start with multiple sources, then read them all, put them aside and write something in your own words, but I grant that this ideal is not always achievable. The danger with use of a single source is the possibility of lose paraphrasing. I do get that sometimes you have no alternative, so take care to make sure that it is written in your own words. As mentioned before, this good reason that the standard itself should be quoted exactly, properly cited and set off in quotation marks or in a block quote, but the exactly copied word should be a small portion of the entire content.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I have resubmitted the draft article with different wording and a wider variety of sources. I hope this is sufficient.Papertd (talk) 40:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Papertd, I hope so too. I typically do not do a follow up - if it isn't flagged by the Copyright detection tool, I assume it is fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Stile Liberty[edit]

Can you revert not copyrighted material? Entire Galileo Chini section, part of graphics etc. Or if you can just revert your edit I will remove copyright material. Thank you.Sourcerery (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery, I temporarily undid my revision deletion so that you can recover the material not subject to copyright. Please let me know when you are done so I can restore the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, done.Sourcerery (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Sourcerery, Thanks for handling it so promptly. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WDSO Chesterton[edit]

I just noticed you took down my edits on the WDSO Chesterton Wikipedia for "Copy Right Reasons". As the public relations officer for WDSO FM, I have permission to post the content. Why did you find it necessary to remove the information added? I spent nearly 2 hours typing half of the stuff up per the General Manager's Instructions... At the very least please undo you revisions and ill take the content from our website off until I can get the form for copyrighted material or whatever is needed. Other stuff included in that edit was not copyrighted whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeweitzel (talkcontribs) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jakeweitzel, if you can place a note on the website noting the release of the text under the a compatible licence, that'll be the quickest way, and once the note is seen it'll be restored, but our policy does not allow use to have text that isn't officially released under a compatible licence or public domain. It needs to be correctly licensed because we don't want to be sued for copyright and we don't want the people who reuse text from Wikipedia to be sued either. Alpha3031 (tc) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Jakeweitzel, Thanks to Alpha3031 for stepping up when I was away. in addition to the useful advice from that editor, I'll also add that you have a conflict of interest due to your position. Please see WP:COI, especially the mandatory disclosure requirements. I cannot restore your edit, but if you want me to email you any content, I can do so, although you will have to enable email as it appears not to be currently available. Check the lower section of the first page on preferences in order to enable your email. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What is your view about the current Archbishop of Onitsha,Most Rev.Valerian Okeke?[edit]

I have read so much about his influence on the education system in his State Anambra Nigeria. Kevinchuks (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

He was born in umudioka of Anambra state Nigeria inBorn: Tuesday, 20 October 1953. Kevinchuks (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kevinchuks, No opinion. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued copyvio by Legende Legende[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for removing copyvio content added by Legende Legende at Xian H-20. This user has added copyvio content to multiple articles despite my warning on their talk page. See other examples: [1] [2]. This user appears to be the same as the IPs and, both blocked for persistent copyvio. See edit history of Mao Yichang. -Zanhe (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, Happy to help. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this user should be blocked for a) repeated copyright violation despite warning; b) likely block evasion; c) removing sourced content with no explanation; d) general unconstructive edits (multiple editors have now left warnings at User talk:Legende Legende, with no response from the user). Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, Blocked. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope the user will change their behaviour after the block expires, although I'm not holding my breath. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Zanhe, Nor I. Keep me in the loop if it continues, as failure to change will result in lengthening blocks. Please consider adding a personal message, as I will next time if I block. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Legende Legende is at it again. On Jiang Zemin, they replaced sourced content with jokes and memes, in violation of BLP. Typical WP:NOTHERE behaviour. -Zanhe (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, I blocked again, this time for a longer period of time. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack?[edit]

Someone made a comment in an edit summary about George Friedman. If it's a personal attack, can it be redacted from edit history? -- George Ho (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, Yes. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Another personal attack[edit]

This edit should be redacted. George Ho (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

George Ho,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 12:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I also found another similar edit made weeks ago. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
George Ho, It's my opinion that this entry does not constitute a personal attack. Sounds like a factual statement, which apparently was removed from the article but isn't directed at any particular individual. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert in saraswat page[edit]

Dear User talk:Sphilbrick I accept that history may be from some net coz I didn’t knew about this restriction but yeah diet and marriage contents are my research so please do restore only this section coz I don’t have copy of that.I spared 1 hour so please provide solution for this. With best regards, Phadke1234 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, Please go to preferences and turn on the option for email, and I will email the contents to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am really not getting what to do since this is not user friendly.So can you paste content here or atleast revert that I personally delete those who are under copyright if you don’t mind.It’s my request. Phadke1234 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, No, I cannot post copyrighted material here, or revert it. in the upper right corner of your screen if you are on a desktop computer and you'll see "preferences". That link has multiple pages put on the first page there is an option to turn on your email. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much,I set the email preference.Next? Phadke1234 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, I get the following message:
This user has not specified a valid email address.
This suggests you did not enter an email address. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Phadke1234, You needed to check the box that says:
Allow other users to email me
and enter a working email address S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was invalid by mistake,Now I have corrected that. Phadke1234 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, email sent. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@SP, for context, see... ——SerialNumber54129 15:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! New user could use some tips[edit]

Hi there! I'm a new user to Wiki and I just noticed you deleted my article for copyright. I'm guessing that was because I quoted some poetry. I had thought this would be alright if properly cited and marked as a quote, but if this is not the case I can easily take these bits out. I also used a number of other sources and wrote the rest of the article in my own words. Please advise on how I can fix the article to comply with copyright. I thought I had it right last time but I'm happy to change it! Always learning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquie.ra (talkcontribs) 18:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacquie.ra, This page: Wikipedia:Quotations
Should have some useful information.
You are on the right track to think that including in quotation marks and properly citing is critical, but that's not sufficient in the case of overly long quotes. the most common example is that editors want to include the lyrics of a song. In general, with the obvious exception of lyrics that are in the public domain or in rare cases lyrics that have been properly licensed, we revert the inclusion of lyrics in articles. The same principle applies to poetry.
It's my observation that are accepted length "rules" (not explicitly stated as far as I know but based upon practice) are more stringent than other publications allow. I commonly see newspapers and blogs excerpting hundred word or more passages, identifying them (hopefully) with block quotes and citations, but we generally want shorter passages.
The language on the page I quoted does not give firm rules it relies on statements such as "limited in extent".
This answer is insufficient I can check with another copyright expert who has more experience with quotation issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't find any firm rules on length of quotations either - which is why I assume longer ones would be alright. However, I should be able to make the same points using smaller (perhaps one line) citations from these poems. Would this satisfy copyright rules? Either way, I'm happy to take the quotations out entirely for now, since the rest of the article was in my own words, and I would love to reinstate those unrelated/uncontested edits. Jacquie.ra (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jacquie.ra

Yes, shorter excerpts (quoted or block quoted) with citations should be fine.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I just updated the page to include shorter block quotes. Let me know if there is still an issue and I'll be happy to change it again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquie.ra (talkcontribs) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Ehud Arye Laniado.jpg[edit]

I noticed you deleted this file with CSD F9 but I'm pretty sure I saw this page earlier with a non-free use rationale template provided, which would preclude F9? --Krenair (talkcontribs) 14:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Krenair, Please see User_talk:Philafrenzy#Ehud_Arye_Laniad Happy to respond further if that doesn't suffice. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw that but this is not about whether the image should be deleted or not, this is about the rationale used for deletion. The one provided in the deletion log comment does not appear valid as it relies on there not being a non-free usage rationale provided. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Krenair, I understand. I prefer to spend time debating whether we have the legal right to ignore the wishes of the copyright holder rather than debating the bureaucratic nit about whether the deletion rationale should be worded differently. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Kings of Con[edit]

Would this be considered a copyvio? Wiki liscenses always confuse me.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, Many other wikis use the same license as Wikipedia:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License
But if you may see some other variation, notably adding in a noncommercial (NC) restriction. That restriction would make it absolutely inconsistent and revertable on that basis alone, however, because a wiki is typically an unreliable source, that usually a better way to go.
My personal practice is that when I'm in "copyright mode" a search for copyright issues and take action based on whether it is a copyright violation or not. Some other editors might examine the copyright issue but if they see another issue, might make the edit based on that other issue. I do this sometimes, for example, I recently reverted something as unsourced because it sort of look like a copyright violation but I couldn't quite nail it down. When I see material from another wiki, I tend to reverted if it has a noncommercial license, but has an acceptable license or an unclear license, I tend to leave it to someone else to revert on the basis of unreliable or other reason.
I poked around that site a little bit but did not find a clear statement of the license, so you have to decide whether you want to:
  • Track down the license and revert if it's not an acceptable license
  • Revert on the basis that a wiki, in general, is an unreliable source
  • Let it go for another editor S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Bengele seems to be assisting with the article, I think it's safe to let it go for him. Thanks for the advice- you've been of great assistence in helping me out and answering my questions. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Honda RC100 revert[edit]

I saw the link you gave on the edit description and I have a feeling that the revert you did on Honda RC100 article might be a case of reverse copyvio/WP:FORKS. (That wiki had no copyright lines and isn't here either.) Or is there something else? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

FMecha, One of the challenges of our copyright detection tool is that it can be susceptible to false positive reports. In many cases, I catch them due to an edit summary which might say something like "restoring material incorrectly removed" or something similar.
Your edit summary simply said "proper info for RC101B '96", so it didn't indicate to me that it might be a false positive.
Looking closer, I see that some of your edit involved moving some paragraphs around, which gets picked up by the copyright violation tool as matching some other the material so I think that's the issue.
I undid my edit. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, I added to the WP:FORKS list. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
FMecha, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR![edit]

Women in Red logo.svg
May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121

Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Marasuchus revert[edit]

Hello, I saw that you had reverted one of my recent edits, claiming that I had plagiarized an Encyclopedia Brittanica article. I agree that there is a portion of the description section which evidently copies that source, although it is cited. However, I should inform you that I did not add this information, it was added on March 31st, 2016 by a user named Paleocemoski. My edit was composed of original descriptions of anatomical features as well as some reformatting and citing. I did not remove the offending information because I did not know it was plagiarized. It seems that your reversion, though well-meaning, actually removed all of my (non-plagiarizing) material while retaining the plagiarized info. So the problem is not solved, and my work has been erased. I'm asking you to restore my version of the page, and I'll make sure to remove the plagiarized info that was present prior to my edit. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fanboyphilosopher, I ended the revision deletion and reverted my own edit. Please let me know when you are done so that I can do a revision deletion on the encyclopedia Britannica text. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance, I have removed or rewritten all of the plagiarized content. Let me know if I've missed anything. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Fanboyphilosopher, Looks fine, thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party[edit]

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

DeltaQuad, Thanks for the correction. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WNBA rosters[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you can weigh in on this proposal. Recent discussion started here. Thank you either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

International Martial Arts Federation[edit]


Can you undo your reversion of the updated portions I created on this page? You also deleted some other pertinent information. I am the one of the administrators for IMAF and the page has not been updated for some time.


My removal was due to the fact that the edits were copyright violations, so no I cannot undo them. (No, I did not miss that you are associated with IMAF.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Please also read, and comply with the requirement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interestS Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you sign your posts see Wikipedia:Signatures, you will get a notification when I reply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning, in Lexington KY[edit]

Hi, if you might recall, there was a past draft article Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning (redlink), about which I have come across some more info, in beginning a new article on architect Herman L. Rowe. This was a draftspace article originally perhaps, or perhaps it was in mainspace. I suspect i was involved in an AFD about it? Maybe I was interested in there being a list of literacy centers? Or a Category:Literacy centers, I don't recall exactly. Anyhow it was deleted eventually by you, and there was User:Doncram/Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning also deleted eventually by you. I don't know why a userspace draft would have been deleted, actually, although I do understand it is okay and perhaps necessary that drafts in draftspace get deleted if they're not progressing, eventually.

I do think the building is likely notable as a Carnegie library and a work of Rowe, and it is in fact in continuing use as a literacy center. The building is mentioned in the Lexington Public Library article as it was the original public library in Lexington; I tend to think it would be useful as a separate article. Could you restore it again to my userspace, hopefully with its complete edit history intact, for me to look at it again, please? --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is this National Park Service page about the building, which mentions it is in NRHP-listed Gratz Park Historic District. So a separate article about the building would legitimately have a NRHP infobox for it being a contributing building. I really don't recall what the slant of the previous article was, or what sources I had found, but this is adding up to suffiency for an article. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, We are permitted to delete drafts when they go unedited for more than six months. That's what happened. I restored it. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring it. Hmm, i don't like the idea that drafts in my own userspace might be being deleted without me knowing about it. It can take me longer than that to get back to something. The draft was in fact a weird hodge-podge, including that I had found a photo of a different Carnegie library to add to the page. Now I think i can probably find a pic of the actual building, and add a lot more. I see i had created it "with copy-paste text from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Organizations. I had not figured out it was a contributing building in a historic district. Anyhow, again thanks. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, I have user space drafts that haven't been touched in years and hope (possibly naïvely) that I will get to someday. if someone deleted them might be less than happy myself. However, I'm not interested in tracking down why and how this one got deleted because asking for it to be restored is close to automatic so it isn't worth my time to think through a modification to our procedures. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Scouts Royale Brotherhood[edit]

The article is a Draft AfC and not yet submitted for review. The article is still under construction, please do consider not to be deleted, thanksWakowako (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wakowako, We don't permit copyright violations. Being under construction does not change this policy. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

thank you!Wakowako (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright question on retrospectives change that was reverted[edit]

Which material do you mean? The text I added was taken from a blog post that I wrote. Do you need some kind of permission from me for publishing it on Wikipedia? BenLinders (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC) BenLinders (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi BenLinders. According to our copyright policy, text content on Wikipedia must be either officially released into the public domain or under a compatible free license (usually CC-BY-SA or GFDL). As the copyright holder, you can do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, specifically the section on donating text content that is already online. Usually the quickest way is to add a copyright release notice to your blog post. Alpha3031 (tc) 03:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Climate change task force[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Femkemilene, Thanks for the notice. I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment but I will try to return to this in a few days. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesomeness[edit]

Barnstarofawesomeness.jpg Barnstar of Awesomeness
I hereby award the Barnstar of Awesomeness to Sphilbrick, a hard working awesome editor! Cheers! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Coming from you, that means a lot!--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Nostra aetate[edit]

I beg your pardon, but I think, in as much as I had already removed the offending sentences in my last edit, your complete reversion of everything was a tad overzealous, in that it also removed a citation, some minor re-phrasing, a number of wikilinks, and restored a transclusion to a non-existent page. However, I'll leave it be, as I'm not all that interested. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Mannanan51, I realized, even as I clicked the rollback button that your removal didn't match your edition so there may be some issues. However, I needed to do a revision deletion of your copyright violation and it is common procedure to do a rollback before doing the revision deletion. If you'd like me to undo it so you can clean it up yourself let me know, but we cannot permit copyright violations even in history. Color me puzzled as you have tens of thousands of edit so I don't quite know what happened. Is it possible it wasn't a copyright violation and I missed something? S Philbrick(Talk) 23:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

How significant is significant?[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for doing the copyvio-revdels on the articles I reported recently. Unfortunately it seems like there are a lot more to come from that user, who has been adding several a day for the past half a year or so... I'm just wondering, in the copyvio-revdel template it says "because the page's history contains significant copyright violations of..." - how significant is significant? Am I wasting your time and mine by reporting only a couple of sentences of obvious copypastes or close paraphrases, like I just did in Mücver? It's clear to me from Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing § Creative expression what sort of thing doesn't belong in an article. But if it's reverted or removed, is there some lower limit where it's not worth bothering about redacting it? --IamNotU (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

IamNotU, Fair question, but I don't have a clear answer at the moment. I'll try to give it some thought and respond tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
IamNotU, I've got too many irons in the fire and cannot give this the attention it deserves. I'm going to go for a partial copout and see if {{ping}Diannaa}} has any thoughts. I'm sure she has considerable experience in this area. I will share that I've mulled over requesting that the foundation provide some funding for what I would call a super revision and delete tool. The impetus for this request is precisely the issue that you identify. In summary, while it's no big deal to do a revision deletion if you catch the problem shortly after the edit (as now happens with Copy Patrol notifications), it's a different story if you find a copyright violation from some time ago as often happens in CCI. One positive aspect of the MediaWiki history is that it is possible to reconstruct any article at any point in time, but one negative aspect is that if problematic material needs to be removed, it is present in every intermediate edit. Doing a revision deletion of an old problem means that we have to hide every intermediate edit from the view of most editors, which is not a good thing. I've wondered if it would be possible to build a tool that reconstructs the editing history as if the problematic edit had never been made. That seems feasible in certain circumstances, but might be difficult or impossible if the problematic text itself was edited in the interim. One of the reasons I haven't pushed for this concept is that I fear I will be told that it's virtually impossible for most circumstances.
However, perhaps there are other approaches we should consider in my hope is that Diannaa might have some insights. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Fixing failed ping @Diannaa:--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Each edit to Wikipedia creates a unique webpage. They are sequentially numbered. To date there have been 897,535,385 edits and thus 897,535,385 webpages created. We don't actually think of each edit no matter how large or how small as creating a new unique webpage but that's what is actually happening. The article history lists those various versions and automatically creates a list of authors (such a list is required for attribution purposes under the terms of our license). So that's why the editing history is built the way it is. Long ago, admins used to delete a page that had copyright issues and then restore only the clean revisions. However, this method invariably removes some contributors from the list in the article history and therefore destroys/removes the required attribution. Regarding revision deletion, I typically perform it for any and all violations of the copyright policy no matter how large or how small, with few exceptions. I make exceptions on heavily edited hot-topic articles where editors find it extremely useful to know exactly who added what, because in addition to adding content, the participants will be monitoring one another for neutral POV, edit warring, etc. And occasionally I will not do revision deletion on a truly tiny violation (like say 2-3 words). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa, Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Sphilbrick and Diannaa! It sounds like a copyvio-revdel template should be added even if it's only one sentence, if it's a copypaste or an obvious close paraphrase. I guess I was hoping it wasn't necessary to bother unless it was a significant/substantial paragraph or two, because there have been literally hundreds of small additions, a sentence or two, from the user I mentioned above, and it takes a long time to try to figure out if those ones are copyright infringements or not. They've usually done a very light paraphrase of the shorter ones, changing enough to make Googling difficult but not enough to make them non-infringing. Other people seem to have just deleted them for being unsourced, as they always are. Maybe I'm being overly conscientious - it's going to take weeks if I have to try to track down originals for every one. I'll think about it some more, thanks again! --IamNotU (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

reversion edits for Har Dayal[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick! I think you have deleted single phrase reversions like reference book title correction like from Dalit to Hindu which is a clear cut mistake in title of book . Also I think edits about “Mr. Har Dayal’s confession of faith” expressing to get amnesty from British Goveronment have no copyright issue, these edits should be restored rather these have been found deleted in this reversion.Guglani (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Guglani, When a copyright problem is identified, it is practice to do a rollback, which undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. That will, in some cases, undo some legitimate edits, but it is quite common that some of the edits other than those flagged involve edits to the copyrighted material. While, in principle, it would be possible to spend the time to tease out exactly what should be removed and retained, this would increase the workload, not by a little bit but by a significant amount. Regarding the "confession of faith" I looked the document and searched for any sign that there was an acceptable license but I didn't see one. What is your basis for concluding there is no copyright issue?
Regarding the otherwise acceptable edits — if you want, I can temporarily change the revision deletion status so you can get at them and redo those separately, then I can restore the revision deletion. Let me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
please go ahead , so that I can redo some edits .Guglani (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Guglani,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Guglani, Please let me know when you are done. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Reversion of Northern Wei[edit]

You mentioned this Copyright issue re without checking that this page in fact got the material from Wikipedia itself. Sgnpkd (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sgnpkd, The copyright tool as developed by Wikimedia does not check for matches to Wikipedia articles (despite my request).
This is often not an issue, as editors are permitted to copy material from other Wikipedia articles as long as they follow best practices as outlined here: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I always look to see if the required notification in the edit summary exists. This happens several times every day and I mark those as acceptable and move on. As you know, you did not provide the required edit summary.
It's not too late; the link provides advice on how to do a dummy edit and add the attribution. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well noted for edit summary, thanks. Sgnpkd (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

REVERSION of Natalia Sokol bio page[edit]

1) why did you delete all 22 previous editing of the page without any explanation? 2) you also mentioned "Copyright issue re (TW)" without any checking. Stefan van Drake has no relation to Voina and Natalia Sokol. His blog is simply copying the info from the original Voina web-site: His article was published Dec, 2011 and original from Dec 2010! I ask you immediately to bring back the editing from May 17 2019 23:00 and explain your motivation pls.

1) I did provide an explanation. You quoted it. 2)It's a copyright violation, even if I didn't get the original source. Not permitted.—S Philbrick(Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


- on Stefan's page he wrote: "I reprint this with Voina´s permission". The link to original publication on Voina website in this case is enough. You could simply ask to add the link but not to destroy all the work which is nothing for you probably. You deleted the piece of art history just because you want to. You're not doing the wiki better and more informative, your behavior looks to me like the behavior of an eraser and ordinary user.
- ask you again to return my editings to full it with links.
18 May 2019 13:31
I urge you to read:
I do see that the permission statement on Stefan van Drakes page. That constitutes permission for him to use the material, not for anyone else.
I now see that there are two problems. The first is the copyright problem. As explained in the link I just provided, material at Free Voina Is subject to full copyright and cannot be used without arranging for permission. The easiest way to do that is to have the copyright holder posted acceptable Creative Commons license on the site. However, even if that happens, the second problem is that the source is highly unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. Before going to the effort of trying to arrange for an acceptable license you might stop in at RSN to see if it qualifies as a reliable source. If it doesn't, that's not much point in trying to arrange for licensing.
As an aside, is it your belief that casting aspersions on my behavior is the best way to accomplish something?—S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
First, I do not casting aspersions on your behavior, but point out that with deleting the information instead of requsting to indicate the source you are depriving the article of information content.
Second, I am a journalist and bibliographer, and therefore I'm always carefully and correctly approach the information from the net. Especially when I'm working with biograhy of famous persons.
In addition to Sokol biography, which you deleted by referring to copyright, you also canceled the following edits in the page, which were confirmed by other media resources:
- 2016 Sokol participated in the Dada festival in Zurich, where she was invited by the Cabaret Voltaire, source -- WATSON
- Correction that the second child of person lives for the eight year without documents. it's obvious if she was born in 2012
- Sokol and her children are currently in a jail in the Austrian city of Graz, source -- RT, Radio Svoboda
- correction of the link to the EKO Cobra Wiki page
- correction of the link to the Moscow State University Wiki page
- correction of the link to the Criminal Code of Russia Wiki page
- information on conditions of Sokol's detention and arrest, with the court document as a source
I Kindly ask you to motivate the cancelling of the mentioned changes 01:29, 19 May 2019 ::::
When a copyright violation is identified, the edit to remove the violation is called a rollback. That unwinds all consecutive edits by the same editor, and sometimes this means that otherwise acceptable edits are also swept up in the rollback. However, throwback is done to remove the copyright violation. In practice, sometimes the other edits are additional copyright violations which need to be removed, sometimes edits to the copyrighted material which need to be removed, and sometimes unrelated which do not need to be removed, but teasing out exactly what should be removed and what should not is an unreasonable burden given the hundreds of reports each day so we undo all of them. You are welcome to redo any edit that is not a copyright violation.
Could you please sign your edits? It is harder to respond when you do not sign and I will cease responding to you if you refuse to sign your edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 05:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)