User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 136

Archive 130

←

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

It's a joy to see your username back on the CopyPatrol list! DanCherek (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the "all-caps" material was from the National Weather Service (see source linked at bottom), I was rewriting it, since an exact copy of the NWS isn't very encyclopedic. Source is in the public domain, as well. :) E_F⁵ 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that the material comes from NOAA which is public domain, but it still needs to be attributed, and unless there is a very good reason , all-caps isn't acceptable. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's just how they write (see the source). I guess I should have cited it, but I don't have a tool that just "de-caps" everything. Anyways, that's off the point. Since the device I write with is too smll to comfortably do the "double-window" thing with, I just paste the PD material (whether it's caps or not) into the draft, rewrite it, and then delete it. E_F⁵ 15:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You deleted my draft for Albany County Executive Daniel P. McCoy's page due to "Copyright Infringement" can you please explain the error so I can remedy it? I am new to Wikipedia so I understand that I may have formatted it wrong. However, please be aware that I am a representative of his office and have permission to use his official bio and photos from our website. Kevin.albany (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not a question of format.

The issue is that this page: Dan McCoy bio is fully copyrighted unless acceptably licensed for use in Wikipedia.

You almost certainly other person you claim to be but we don't know that officially, and we can't take you word for it.

There is a process for providing a license for that site so that it can be used by Wikipedia.

There is a link:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates

See WP:COI

For going that route, please be aware that if you are a representative of his office then you have a conflict of interest issue and should not be editing a page about him.

Sorry for the bureaucracy but it's necessary.

Here's a link to a page specifically designed for new editors to ask questions. Wikipedia:Teahouse

I urge you to post there, explain your position relative to Daniel McCoy, and I am fairly certain you will get advice that discourages you from writing such an article. That's without even addressing the question of copyright. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick - I have a quick question regarding the best location on wiki to develop draft articles.

Background: I am developing what will be a very comprehensive article on Tom O'Malley (the founder of the modern independent refining industry). I grabbed parts of a relatively weak (and 25-year-old stale article from Encyclopedia.com) as a starting framework. My article will be 5-10x as long as the starting point and probably have >100 references. However, while it was sitting in draft mode (for literally minutes) without being submitted under AfC, and without its citations, a bot picked up the similarity with encyclopedia.com (which surprised me given that it was a draft as patrolling drafts seems a bit odd). I then cut the text out and put it into my sandbox - leaving the draft space empty but did not delete the draft shell as I plan to repopulate when the article is more mature.

The sandbox does not appear to be bot-patrolled (please disabuse me if this is wrong).

I have run into similar issues when I bring in a large new article from MS Word all at once and save before the citations have been completed (in draft mode). Should all of this work be done in the sandbox versus the draft space? This seems a bit counterintuitive to me. thank you

here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_D._O%27Malley

Refineryguycanada (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the sandbox is patrolled. It must be as I occasionally see it pop up in the notifications of potential copyright issues. Neither the draft space nor the sandbox are acceptable places for starting articles if your approach is to bring in copyrighted information and then clean it up. While I personally think that's never a desirable editing approach, I get that sometimes people do it that way. If you choose to work that way, it must be done off-line.

Material in draft space and in sandbox space doesn't have to fully meet final editing standards such as formatting or even complete citations, but it can never ever have copyrighted text other than the obvious exceptions (short excerpts as block quotes or within quotation marks) S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for the heads up. Refineryguycanada (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325 Online events: New: Women who died in 2024 | Religion Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here Tip of the month: Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

Please revert the deletion of draft article at Draft:The-Corruption-of-economics and let me delete the the copyright offensive material. This is going to be my first article.

I did not realise that a public description of a book on Amazon is subject to copyright.

Thank you,

Janos Abel Janosabel (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, everything you add to an article should be in your own words. Some of the exceptions include short quotes with the material is in a block quote or marked with quote marks and attributed. Other exceptions include public domain text which is properly attributed. My guess is some people are confused with the term public domain and think that things found in public websites constitute public domain. If that's your assumption it is quite incorrect.

My recollection is that there was not much of value beyond the copyrighted material in the draft article I deleted so I'm declining to restore it. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

So is there no way to write an article now for that book?

Harsh regime to enforce. I was not allowed to correct an error due to misunderstanding or insufficient competency.

There is plenty of value and noteworthiness I can put into that article during the weeks to come. Janosabel (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I decided to take a second look on the chance that I misremembered the contents. Here's the entire contents of the article excluding the copyrighted portion:

A book by Fred Harrison and Mason Gaffney edition published in 2023 by Shepheard-Walwyn. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this second chance. Teaches me to be more careful about rules. Janosabel (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I noticed that my recent article Draft:Krishna Hari Pushkar was speedily deleted due to copyright infringement. I sincerely apologize for this oversight and kindly request you to consider restoring the article temporarily, so I can remove the infringing content and improve it in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Gauravs 51 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry that's not an option. I can and did email you the contents although it was unbelievably painful due to the convoluted history of this article S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sir, can I rewrite and rectify my mistakes ? @Sphilbrick Gauravs 51 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I sent the contents of the deleted draft to you by email. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Many Thanks !! Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As a new wikipedia editor, I am guaranteed to mess up, and I would appreciate some advise on adding information and sources to stubs or any article as I am not sure what is against the copyright rules. On the Lake Pape article you reversed my additions but I am not sure why it broke copyright rules, thank you for understanding my good intentions. BigBlobfish (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking so politely. I'm sure it can be jarring when you're trying to make good faith improvements to an article and find they been removed.

Look at your first sentence of the biodiversity section:

Lake Pape is rich in organic matter and is classed as a mesotrophic lake on the Trophic state index.

Now check out this site and look at the first sentence of the biodiversity section:

Lake Pape is rich in organic matter - a mesotrophic lake.

That sentence is a close call, and had it simply been that sentence I would've let it go. However, look at your second sentence:

There are sharp-leaf plants growing on the shores and bays of the lake.

And now the second sentence of the site:

There are sharp-leaf plants growing on the shores and bays of the lake.

There are several additional sentences, some identical, some close paraphrases.

The next issue is whether the source issue is acceptably licensed so that it could be used (with attribution course)

Many sites include a footer with the copyright status of the site. In this case, there is no such indication at the bottom of the page, nor is there at the bottom of the main page. Occasionally, I will run across editors who think the absence of a copyright statement means there is no copyright. While that was true many decades ago, the law was changed and the default assumption is that material is subject to full copyright even if there is no particular notice. There are some exceptions such as material created by US federal employees in the course of their employment, but that doesn't apply here.

The site appears to be associated with the country Latvia. While I have not memorized the copyright laws in every country, many countries are part of the Berne Convention. Latvia has been a signatory since 1995. See also Latvia The Berne Convention states that material is automatically subject to copyright as opposed to requiring a specific indication. (This is a casual summary. ) If you have information suggesting that this site is public domain, please let me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for such a kind response. But does this mean I can't use the information from the site or does this mean I just have to write in my own words? BigBlobfish (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You can use the information, in fact you should use it as a reference, but you should write it in your own words. I urge you to read close paraphrase. Some editors were under the impression that as long as they change a few words here and there will not be an exact copy which is correct, the key issue is whether it's essentially the same thing. This can be tricky as your goal is to make the same point. Good practice is not to copy a sentence and then try to change it, but read the whole site and ideally some other relevant site, and then write your own summary. When done, take a look at the original source on the chance your memory is so good you managed to largely reproduce it. Good luck, and thanks for your interest in contributing. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance and support! BigBlobfish (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I just edited Bedinvetmab to add the MOA which is missing. I pulled the info from the manufacturers prescribing information - i.e. the primary source and my edit was removed because of copyright violations? This is my first contribution to Wikipedia and based on this experience likely my last. Diegoarey (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider.

The early edits of many new contributors arise because they read an article, realize some important information is missing, go out and find that information and add that information copying and pasting from the original source, not realizing that this is almost always a violation of copyright policy.

Contributing to Wikipedia is a little bit harder than some realize, because it means you have to write the information in your own words (with some rare exceptions such as identified short quotes, and material from some public domain sources.)

We want material added to Wikipedia articles to be reliable and while it might seem obvious that the words written by the actual manufacturer would be the best source, that's not necessarily the case. Manufacturers have a potential conflict of interest. One hopes they write factually and unbiased but one can't be sure, which is why we like to support additions to articles with citations to reliable sources that is places that have a reputation for being unbiased.

You asked about the point of contributing. The point is that when done correctly, Wikipedia can serve as a source of information which is as free of bias is we as a community can manage. All done by volunteers and free to the public. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense on one hand, on the other hand, if the point is to fact check because "while it might seem obvious that the words written by the actual manufacturer would be the best source, that's not necessarily the case. Manufacturers have a potential conflict of interest." then I would have expected the community to edit what I wrote if it's factually incorrect rather than delete it. Diegoarey (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two issues which relate to two of the five pillers of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five_pillars

The second pillar:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

Is why we have concerns about accepting material from the manufacturer without question. That's why we push for "citations based on reliable sources" in sources with a conflict of interest which aren't viewed as reliable. That doesn't totally exclude the use of information from a manufacturer. For example a statement such as "according to the manufacturer, lorem Ipsum..." Might be acceptable if it's clear that the words are not in Wikipedia's voice and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The second issue relates to the third pillar:

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

That means we need to "respect copyright laws and never plagiarize from any sources". S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329 Online events: New: Music (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run A & B | Internet personalities Continuing: #1day1woman (year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2024 Announcements from other communities Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2025 Participate in #1Lib1Ref Jan 15 – Feb 5, 2025 Tip of the month: Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

could you provide a copie of the article Reign of Righteousness Kharavela Deva (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Sent to your email address S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Not visible. Regards,Ved Sharma (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What does that mean? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Your revert reinstated numerous errors. Why?

• I left you a message there on Talk, where your reasons for your unsupported revert should have been noted.
• I provided a reliable source for the simplest corrections of the original history of Buddhist robes, when the numerous errors were completely unsourced, those multiple errors your revert reinstated - on New Year's Eve, of all inappropriate times.

Metokpema (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I responded at your talk page. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You deleted my edits on Draft:Courland Uprising, destroying my hard work. I would like to politely ask you to send me text you deleted, so I can rewritte it and get back to working on my article :) I know that your bot flagged it as "copywritted", but it was just a quote from a newspaper, I pasted so I could use its informations in the article. It obviously wasn't intended to be in the final version. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you say it was "just a quote from a newspaper". That's exactly what is meant by violation of copyright rules. It is permitted to use short quotes if enclosed in quotation marks or set off as a block quote and if they are properly sourced neither of which apply here.

You seem to be under the impression that it's okay to have copyrighted material in a draft. It is not. It's never a good practice to start with copyrighted material and massage it but if you must, do it in an off-line editor.

My reversion may have picked up otherwise acceptable edits because it's standard practice to revert all consecutive edits by the same editor. I can send you the material but you need to turn on your email option in your preferences so that I can send it to you via email. Alternatively, and more easily for you, I turned off the code which hides the edits so you can recover the edits yourself. Let me know when you are done so I can turn back on the revision deletion code. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hii @Sphilbrick , Thanks for letting me about my mistakes regarding Copyright issue. i should repharse it on my own words. i will surely keep in mind for further editing in future. Apart from this , This khawaspur page is totally mistaken to Pakistan which is totally wrong. there is nothing like khawaspur village or Ropur district in Pakistan. Also there is no any citation in page that support it a village in Pakistan. Only one citation is there which say it's in India. Also i checked all contribution history also , editors also claim that this page has many mistakes. So allow me to do a revision of this whole page. i surely will provide a reputable citation for it. I will again keep in mind about copyright issues matter.

Much Regards Callmehelper (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Callmehelper (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Go for it. I agree, it seems clear it is in India, so a complete overhaul is warranted. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

---