Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FYI:

Copyright issue?

If you are coming to open a discussion with me because I reverted an edit of yours as a copyright issue, please make sure your post includes a link to the article in question - not just the name of the article, a link. Then read the following:

I typically use an edit summary with "copyright issue re URL", or "cv URL". The URL identifies source material that matches your edit too closely.

Copy Within Wikipedia If you added material to an article which came from an existing article in Wikipedia, it is highly likely that this will be flagged as a potential copyright violation in our CopyPatrol software.

If you followed the best practices at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, you left an edit summary indicating the source, I will mark it as acceptable, and you are probably not reading this message. On the other hand, if you did not identify what you did in an edit summary, then I probably reverted the edit. However, the indicated source URL will not be the Wikipedia article, it will be be some site that copied from Wikipedia. (As a technical point, this is not a false positive because failing to follow best practices means that the attribution requirements have not been followed.) If the edit has been revision deleted, let me know so I can reverse it and you can provide the proper attribution. If it was not revision deleted but simply reverted, feel free to undo my revert, explaining carefully in the edit summary why you are doing so and add the proper attribution.

Other issues There are other reasons why your edit may have been reverted in error. I do a lot of reviews of flagged issues. In 1 to 2% of the cases, I do make a mistake and I'm happy to rectify it. Some sources of errors:

  • Source page which has a full copyright notice at the bottom of the page but material within the page is properly licensed. Sometimes that license is buried in the page and sometimes on a separate page.
  • Source material that is public domain but not clearly identified as such.
  • Source material that is properly licensed but I somehow failed to notice the license
In any of these cases, politely let me know and I will remedy this situation as quickly as possible.


April editathons at Women in Red

[edit]

January 2020 at Women in Red

[edit]
January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

[edit]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Chartered_Institute_for_the_Management_of_Sport_and_Physical_Activity

Thank you for flagging the copyright violation. I agree with the removal. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website you flagged. This included infobox additions, a new section, and other text in the introduction not related to the vision/mission paragraphs.

I have reintroduced these elements onto the page. I will leave mission/vision absent.

COI on my profile. Happy to add elsewhere if needed.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Reece_at_CIMSPA

While it may not seem like the right thing to do, it is convention, when identifying a copyright issue, to do a rollback, which sometimes picks up other copyright issues and sometimes picks up inrelated,a nd non-problematic issues. You are always welcome to restore the non-copyright issue edits.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••

[edit]

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Deleted without courtesy warning.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Requesting undeletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Sir, can I rewrite and rectify my mistakes ? @Sphilbrick Gauravs 51 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I sent the contents of the deleted draft to you by email. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many Thanks !! Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Pape

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

What's the point of contributing?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Copy of an article

[edit]

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

Sent to your email address S Philbrick(Talk) 13:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not visible. Regards,Ved Sharma (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

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

Your revert at Kasaya_(clothing)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Courland Uprising

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Issue Regarding Khawaspur Page

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For the article Mischgerät (V-2 guidance computer) at URL "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mischgerät_(V-2_guidance_computer)":

On 20:14, 7 January 2025, you had noted "Copyright issue re https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/49950/is-there-a-schematic-of-hoeltzers-mischger%c3%a4t-v2-a4-electronic-guidance-computer/50286"

First off, my bad, in that I 1) was using the Wikipedia entry as a text editor for the draft, rather than my sandbox, and 2) didn't promptly add cites.

I'm the author for the referenced StackExchange question and accepted answer. As I noted on that platform, I machine translated and lightly edited some German language passages from the document "Das Gerät A4 Baureihe B Gerätbeschreibung", downloaded originally from http://www.aggregat4.de/pdf/Gerätebeschreibung_A4.pdf, but since then from https://archive.org/download/technicaldescriptionA4/Gerätebeschreibung_A4_text.pdf

Based on my understanding of German copyright law I've gathered within Wikipedia regarding Public Domain material, I believe the material in the source PDF is PD in both Germany and the US, based on a lack of a named author, and that it was published a few days short of 80 years ago.

While the very lightly edited machine translation was adequate for my purposes on StackExchange, it needs a complete rewrite in my own words for easier comprehension on Wikipedia, which was what I was in the midst of.

Was the copyright issue due to similarity with the StackExchange entry, or status of the source document? If the former, it would be helpful - but not critical - to retrieve my draft of the "Operation" section of the "Mischgerät" article.

If the latter, I'd appreciate guidance on how best to "adjudicate" what would apparently be differing opinions on whether I'm working with PD material or not. Cmholm (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that it was that old which would make it PD. I believe SR copyright notice on the page but that might not have applied to the material in question.
I see that you've had a number of consecutive edits and have edited after I did the reversion so it's not perfectly clear how best to proceed.
The simplest approach (admittedly for me) is for me to say I'm sorry I missed the underlying material was PD, and let you recover as best you can. Alternatively I can undo my reversion but I think that will mess up edits you've made subsequent to my reversion. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation that reversion would make a mess, I've backed up my current work off-line. If you're willing to undo the revision, I'll copy that to an off-line source and paste the current work back in. Cmholm (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it to the version before my reversion. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing other copyright pleas on this page, I now realize I should have been drafting articles off-line from the get-go, rather than piling up my references and just jumping in. Cmholm (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud you for your initiative to read other examples of editors involved in copyright issues.
I agree that working off-line is considered a best practice, but we also have a guideline urging you to Wikipedia:Bold
Don't feel that you have to do all of your work off-line. Ideally, after any edit, the article should stand on its own. In the early years of Wikipedia some people used to put up "under construction" templates to indicate that an article was in the process of transformation but that practice is less common today. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'll work to make sure an edit will stand on its own and be cited before leaving it for the night, unlike the revision under discussion! :) Cmholm (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

  • Les Jours and East View Press join the library
  • Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Color Lines

[edit]

Hello!

The article is about a real game that does exist! And it was only a draft! There is a Wikipedia article about it in Russian Wikipedia: http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/Color_Lines Game rules were actually taken from a previous (deleted) version of the article from the web archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20100807063847/http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Color_Lines Your link is just a description of the same game that was taken from this deleted Wikipedia article. The oldest web archive page is dated only 2012! genina.com is NOT a copyright owner of the game nor the game rules!

Please revert the deletion of the article so I can finish it. Thank you. Margarita byca (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning whether the game existed. Your statement that "it was only a draft" doesn't mean anything with respect to copyright. Wikipedia doesn't permit copyright violations in articles in drafts in user space or anywhere. If you text came from an earlier deleted Wikipedia article that may be fine but you didn't identify the name of the draft. I work on hundreds of articles every week I can track it down but it be easier if you told me which article you are talking about. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't identify the name of the draft, because you have deleted it completely.
Here is the link: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Color_Lines
Here is the deleted article I used: https://web.archive.org/web/20100807063847/http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Color_Lines
If this old article used copyrighted materials, I won't use it. Margarita byca (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the draft.
I'm not convinced it should exist. This site asserts copyright over the text you used. You claim they don't own the copyright. I think you need to be prepared to defend that. I'll accept that there are legitimate questions about the copyright status, and frankly that's probably a good argument for leaving it deleted until you can prove otherwise but I will reestablish it as a draft and let the discussion continue. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Draft:Hum Dono (2023 TV series)

[edit]

You have reverted my edits on Draft:Hum Dono (2023 TV series) as per copyright issue from This Link. The text i copied it from because i add it it the Reception section of the series. So i add the same text as the reviewer states. On another hand you have removed much of the text from the Draft Like Production, Plot and soundtrack section which was not under the copyright claim. Please take a look on your edit. Thanks Beyond the Bond (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that "production, plot and soundtrack" are not subject to copy right. That's not true. We do cut people some slack with a list of the soundtrack because it's very difficult to rewrite a soundtrack in your own words but you included a lot of material that was subject to copyright. We also permit the use of reviewer's comments if reasonably short, included inside quotation marks or set off with block quotes, and accompanied by attribution. I don't recall that you did that but I handled dozens of article so I'm not remembering the exact form of your edit. I do recall that you copied word for word a number of things from the review without properly identifying them as quotes. I confess I haven't really relooked at your edit to be sure; I can if you want but it didn't seem like it was a close call. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pendle Hill Quaker Center for Study and Contemplation

[edit]

Hello S Philbrick. I wonder did you see that editor's previous additions? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not.
I just took a brief glance and it looks problematic.
The current working Wikipedia is significantly reduced from prior years. In earlier years if I saw someone with that username I would provide some information about the problems with the name, but I'm currently limiting my edits to a couple of areas one of which is narrowly looking at reports at copy patrol and responding to them. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Would it be appropriate to leave advice on their Talk page about copyright violation? Many thanks for your time. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. My general practice is I leave a note about the copyright issue if they are a registered user and I'm the one who did the reversion. If, as in this case I see that someone else has made the reversion and I simply do the revision deletion I don't leave a message. You're welcome to do so but let me know if you were hinting I should leave a message. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can leave a standard {{subst:uw-copyright}}, if you think that's appropriate? But not sure what to do with those earlier additions, which look smaller.Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Vandalism Case : Need Administrator Intervention

[edit]

Hii @Sphilbrick. Myself @Callmehelper

there is in my view a vandalism case in the wikipedia page Ahir.

Background of whole matter

i am assuming that in Wikipedia page, it has concensus for long time that Generally Ahir has three Sub-Division. 1) Yaduvanshi 2) Nandavanshi and 3) Goallavanshi ,

reason being, i check throughout history of that page that these three divison have there for many years. But recently one editor changed all that in three edits these are following - 1st edit 2nd edit 3rd edit At first stance , i like their reason of these editing and thought probably this guy has a valid reason for doing that and I ignored.

I myself for the first time came here for the inclusion of a word ' Prakrit' here as it is well known fact with citation see then as being myself an extended user, someone tag and approaches me that this guy edits many factual correct things. pls correct it. then i got into this history contributions n all.

So i did correction with citations along additional quote of that book with page see and this

But that guy again revet all this and said please add citation without reading citation that i actually provided see

So now i go his talk page and told that guy to undo those edits see here last talk

I thought he would give me a valuable reply but instead of this, he just delete or archive my Talk and said that i should go for admin see but i don't know who admin is here.

Now i go again on editing war i guess and edit again all those with three more book reference in consecutive three edits see 1 2 and 3 and left a talk page discussion as well see

But apart from all that that editor still revert all this buy claimig that all sources have no value , and literally suggest me to go talk page see

Now I have no any option for going edits n all and since in talk page , no one give my answer. So i came to your talk page instead of going long vandalism intervantion reports n all .

I don't even belong to any of these caste, but my 2 days intervantion into this say a lot that this Ahir page is hijacked by some of the Biased people who try to manipulate things on their on term. they literally reject 4 to 5 citation book and tell these are no value .

Please look at into this , whenever you have free time.

Much Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am scaling back my editing, with emphasis on copyright issues and development of selected articles. While I done vandalism work in the past it's not something I've worked on for some time so I'm sorry but I won't be able to help. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deletion: End of the American frontier

[edit]

You deleted my draft: end of the American frontier. I used text from "to be, or not to be" as a placeholder next to an image in a blank section. Was this why it was deleted?

Yes, looked like vandalism. Very inappropriate. There's rarely a justification for placeholder text, but if you must, do it right Lorem ipsum.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese UFC champions

[edit]

Greetings. It seems you've been redacting pages about mma for decades. May i ask you a question? Page about Kazushi Sakuraba calls him first of two Japanese UFC champions. Don't you know who was the other one? Lyoto Machida?Akaan327 (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have no idea. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Dryfuss Deletion

[edit]

Please see my comments on the Talk:Henry Dreyfuss page. --Zeamays (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article keeps being deleted: Mandy Lemaire

[edit]

My article keeps being deleted. I have references and have not violated any copyright Mspi007 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The contents appear to be virtually identical to the text at: this site
Can you explain why this appears to be so? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was used as a reference. If I rewrite it all, would the article stay up? Mspi007 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you rewrite in your own words, rather than copying and pasting, it won't be an copyvio. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if more changes are needed Mspi007 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red February 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

  • Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history

Tip of the month:

Suggestion:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Incorrect deletions? Please respond to comments left for you.

[edit]

Hi,

I believe you mistakenly removed some of my changes to a wiki article on Jan. 22, moments after I made it. You left a lengthy boilerplate message on my page saying to contact you if the removal was a mistake. I believe it was a mistake, so I responded to your message on my page the same day. On Jan. 24, I left a second, more extensive explanation in a reply. I still have not received a response back. Please see here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedian-in-Waiting#c-Wikipedian-in-Waiting-20250124121000-Sphilbrick-20250122001300. Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. Unfortunately your attempt to ping me failed, so this is the first I've heard of it. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you reply here, I will see it, if you reply on your talk page you will need to ping me correctly which I urge you to try.
Example:
@Wikipedian-in-Waiting: If you reply here, I will see it, if you reply on your talk page you will need to ping me correctly which I urge you to try.~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer here and on my page, hoping you see the response. Yes, please undo the removal you made to both of my changes to the wiki article. On the article's revision log, they were:
- 20:58, 21 January 2025, (+548) Bible Quilt 1886
- 23:47, 21 January 2025, (+2,484) Pictorial Quilt 1898 Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted.
Sorry about that. The bad habit of many websites to incorporate public domain text into their page and assert copyright over the whole page is annoying. I often catch it, because the general style of writing is different, but I missed it this time. Unfortunately we are dealing with hundreds of reports every week and a tiny handful of volunteers to address them, so occasionally I spend less time reviewing them would be ideal. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, i was recently working on Draft:Siege of Nisibis (350) and you reverted it, for copyright issues, my I know whats the problem in more specifics? Thank you again. Hollowww (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page the material seems to match too closely material at the following site:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASiege_of_Nisibis_%28350%29&diff=1273104746&oldid=1273104342
I don't see any evidence that the site is properly licensed. Did I miss it? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which site are you talking about? I'm sorry if I'm causing this much confusion, it's just the first time that's ever happened to me. Hollowww (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i just understood which website / source was not licensed. May I get a chance to revert you edit and remove this source? Hollowww (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not generally accepted protocol to restore copyright violations to Wikipedia, but I made a copy of the contents of the article just before my reversion and I sent it to you via email. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, again, have a good day. Hollowww (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete my unsubmitted draft

[edit]

Some nutcase here called @Sphilbrick deleted an unsubmitted draft that I'm busy working on. With all the research I was doing on the subject now I must start afresh. This is totally unacceptable and should remain a rule at Wikimedia that no article should be deleted while the editor is working on it; the article was unsubmitted and I don't know who gave you right to it. ZS Khumalo (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to be a copyright violation. As explained at the top of this page, if you think I made a mistake, please explain why and if my deletion was an error I will be happy to restore the draft S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathworld

[edit]

Hi Sphilbrick, I see you've been adding some Mathworld citations today. Maybe you are aware of these past discussions, but I would point you to them just in case: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#MathWorld and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2024/Mar#Is_Wolfram_Mathworld_reliable?. All the best, JBL (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read and I will respond. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added post here:
RS Mathworld revisited S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD4

[edit]

With thanks for your recent help (including correcting for my error in the tag), as you're listed here, would you mind perhaps taking a quick look here? IMO this falls under RD4 (as oversightable on MPJI/KIDS/BLPNAME grounds). Not the 'worst' example. But maybe worth redaction. Guliolopez (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I used to have that tool but I don't at the moment. Please see how to contact at [[Wikipedia:Requests for oversight S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick&oldid=1275753859"