User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 95

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 90

←

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

Archive 96

Archive 97

→

Archive 100

Hello Sphilbrick. You reverted my changes due to a copyright, but I cited and referenced the source. You did this as I was editing and I subsequently lost lots of edits. I am new to wikipedia. It seems you are not. It also seems that you do this a lot from the comments below. Exactly what do you think you are contributing?. Reverting peoples changes due to copyright reasons while it is very evident they are in mid editing mode, causing so much confusion and lost edits. Please explain yourself. This is unacceptable. I am a published scientist and know full well how to reference things. You just wasted 3 hours of my time. --sniffadog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sniffadog: Please read: Wikipedia:Copyright_violations. Citing and referencing is important, but that does not make it all right to use copyrighted information.

New comments go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

If the material you added to Pongamia is acceptably licensed, please point me to the license statement because I did not see it, and all (recently written) material is automatically subject to full copyright (with some rare exceptions) I must there is a clear statement of a free license. If you can identify a license please let me know and I'll tell you what additional steps you need to take. Otherwise, I will remove it again. Wikipedia respects copyright.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You said that I "do this a lot from the comments below". I presume you are referring to reversion of material for copyright reasons. You are correct I do this a lot. Not as much a some people but more than most. However, I don't get the impression you were praising my diligent work effort but implying I'm doing something wrong. I was inspired to do some quick and dirty analysis.

My talk page includes roughly the last two months posts. According to the leaderboad I closed 444 cases in the last 30 days, which means about 900 in the last two months. (To be fair, not all case closings involve a reversion — in some cases there is a false positive, and I record it as acceptable.) I think there are about 10 posts dealing with copyright issues. That's slightly over a 1% inquiry rate. Note importantly, that's an inquiry rate not an error rate. In slightly over 1% of the cases I close, an editor poses a question, typically to ask about why something was reverted. In most cases, the responses that they don't quite understand our copyright policy. In some cases, typically less than half of the inquiries, they point out that the material was licensed properly (sometimes the license is on an obscure different page), and in those cases I do my removal. Roughly speaking, my error rate is conservatively less than half a percent. If I could persuade the foundation to do a better job of identifying false positives it could drop even further but I feel reasonably comfortable that an error rate of under half a percent does not mean I need to materially change my approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You reverted the changes I made to their page under copyright protection.

The information posted on their page was sourced directly from the Mt Joy website. I cited that source in the history section. You also removed their discography? Why? That information is available via Spotify (which was also cited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcowdisease (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mattcowdisease, Is there something in the water today? This is the second query on almost the exact same thing in the last hour or so. (See the prior post). Please read: Wikipedia:Copyright_violations. Citing and referencing is important, but that does not make it all right to use copyrighted information. it must be freely licensed. If you think the material was freely licensed and I missed the license, please point it out. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no copyright for that material...it's available for use on their website. You linked an article that you quoted as copy written material, but that originated from their website which does not include a copyright. The manage of the band reached out to me after I informed him of the update and there was nothing about what I wrote being copy written.

To the next point, you erased their discography? What part of that is copyright? That's listing the track available on their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcowdisease (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mattcowdisease, Almost everything written recently (with some rare exceptions such as works from the federal government) is automatically subject to for copyright whether a copyright notice is included or not. here's a page that discusses some of the acceptable free licenses Wikipedia:File_copyright_tags. Regarding the discography, it is our standard practice when identifying material subject to copyright to do what is called a rollback, which reverts the entire edit and all consecutive edits made by the same editor. but sometimes might include a reversion of material that might not have a copyright problem. The reason this is done is to be safe. It's better to under the whole thing, then sort out the copyright status and some material can be added back without copyright problems, it can be added back. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly do you need here? This is pretty infuriating. I reached back out to their manager and he suggested using the bio on their website, which I already used. I mean, I can write something myself but there's no point when I've been given permission to use that bio and cite it on here.

At least revert the discography edit. There is absolutely zero reason to have removed that and to also remove the link to their website and the link to their Spotify. I can understand you wanting to CYA on the history (even though express permission has been granted) but the discography, website link, and Spotify link should be added back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcowdisease (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mattcowdisease, I'm sorry it's infuriating but you have violated our copyright policy, and the only thing we've done is to undo the edit. If you are a conversation with the manager then you need to read WP;COI. that level of involvement might not qualify as a conflict of interest but at the very minimum it's a close call. Your request to the manager for permission to use some material means absolutely nothing. The manager would have to confirm that they are the copyright holder and specifically file a permission statement with us, or add an appropriate license to the website. I don't propose that either step be carried out, because in addition to being properly licensed, it has to be encyclopedic text, and text written by the subject is always suspect. On rare occasions, when written by an outside professional who can write neutrally it might be acceptable but in almost all cases, the language violates some of our policies. Regarding discography, I'd have to check to see if discography is an exception to our copyright policies. I frankly don't know. You are free to add it back, but no guarantees that it won't be removed. I'm not going to restore something whose copyright status I am unsure about. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mattcowdisease, As an aside, are you Matt Quinn? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, I still don't understand why you removed the Discography, artist page link, and spotify link. You haven't explained those removals. You also removed an edit to include the fifth member of the band. Even the tiny blub mentions it's a five piece band, yet you removed my addition of the fifth band member. Why? What is the point in removing all that? You haven't given justification for doing so other than just blanket removing everything I edited.

To you question on whether I am Matt Quinn: no. Mattcowdisease (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Mattcowdisease, I explained the removal. (I changed it to bold for emphasis). I also opened a discussion about discography here. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Following your most helpful suggestions and action, above, I am pushing my luck to the extent of inviting you, if you are so inclined, to look in at the peer review of the main Hector Berlioz article. If you are unenthusiastic about wading through a 8,600-word article I shall, of course, entirely understand, but if you can find time to look in I'd be very glad. Tim riley talk 21:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. You reverted my changes due to copyright, but I went to the US government source, and copied the text from there while editing it / summarizing it. Source: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patents-humanity/2016-award-recipients I believe that would fall under fair use. Would you agree? Feel free to revert back if I'm correct. --nunocordeiro (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick! Responding to your query on my talk page, I moved this subject to the bottom. And yes, this issue is still unresolved. I believe my comment is fairly self-explanatory. Should I somehow clarify? Here's the link to your revision which I think should be reversed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patents_for_Humanity&action=history nunocordeiro (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Nunocordeiro, I reverted my removal. I time is limited at the moment and while I might have some time in the morning I'm not sure, but I do know I have a most of day away from the computer event starting in the morning.

I will last that you read: Wikipedia:Attribution. Material in the public domain can be used but it must be attributed. the patent office page indicates that some of the material is in the public domain But not necessarily all. I haven't had the time to track down whether the information you copied does have a copyright problem but it is likely that it does not. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You delete my part in the Maia article, because of copyright iussues (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maia_%28nurse%29&type=revision&diff=864007255&oldid=864000579). I am very sorry, but it seems that there is a confusion going on. The news paper article is from 2015, the main text of the article is from 2010. It seems that the newspaper article copied the wikipedia article and not the other way round. They broke the copyright laws and not me. thanks -- Udimu (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Udimu, Situations like that do occur. One common situation is some material is added to a Wikipedia article at some point in time, some other editor chooses or to remove it for some reason at a later point in time, and still later, an editor chooses to restore it to the article. Best practices are that the editor restoring the material should explain this in an edit summary. The restoration will look like a copyright issue because it is adding material that can now be found at an external site (one that copied from the original Wikipedia material). Without an explanatory edit summary, is not easy to tell what happened. Can you provide a more complete explanation? If so, I'll be happy to revert or you can. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ːcan you just check the article version from 2010 to 2014 and then the newspaper article. The article is from 2015. Already in 2010 the main text was there, with some further changes over the years. What further evidence is needed? It seems that the journalists needed information and evidently copied the wiki article. I assume they did not bother to read the original research publications (it is not online). -- Udimu (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask to have you point me to a version containing the text?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ːthis is the last version of the text in 2014. The Ahram article is from 2015ː https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maia_(nurse)&oldid=597258417. My information in the wiki article is taken from the Zivie publication (Alain Zivie: La Tombe de Maia, Toulouse 2009, ISBN 978-2-913805-03-3), cited in the article. My part in the article was a summary of this book. -- Udimu (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

From the 2014 versionː The tomb consists of the cult chambers with three decorated rooms and the underground, mostly undecorated, burial chambers. The first room of the cult chapel of her tomb is dedicated to the life of Maia. This includes a scene showing Tutankamun sitting on the lap of Maia and there is a badly damaged scene showing Maia in front of the king. The second room is dedicated to the burial rites associated with Maia. Maia is shown in front of offering bearers. She is depicted as a mummy in relation to the opening of the mouth ritual and she is standing before the underworld god Osiris. The third room is the biggest and has four pillars. The pillars are decorated with the image of Maia. The back of the room shows a stela carved into the rock with Maia in front of Osiris. In this room there is also a staircase leading down to the burial chambers. Most other walls of this room are undecorated.... If you googleː the Ahram article comes first. -- Udimu (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Udimu, You misunderstood my point and did more work than was necessary. I was simply asking for a link to an earlier version which contained the text such as: this. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ːthis is the article versionː https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maia_(nurse)&oldid=597258417 from 2014. The text (description of the tomb) is in great parts identical to the news paper article from 2015. -- Udimu (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Udimu, It's all taken care of. Please remember to use edit summaries to avoid this in the future. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ːːmany thanksǃ I will provide proper references, it just needs some days. -- Udimu (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Why did You delete this page? It was not a copy from the website. I even did not know that it exists. I only included quotes from a book whose author died 80 years ago. Propositum (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Propositum, I didn't delete it but it looked wholly inappropriate to me. Please read MOS:QUOTE S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sphilbrick, thanks for helping clear up the page, you are right that i shouldn't have copied the promo material to the article. I just wanted to mention that adding the "welcome to wikipedia" to my talk page irk'd me a bit. I've been a contributor on wikipedia from all the way back to 2008. I just keep my head down and haven't done too much! Have a great weekend! Corhen (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I try not to template the regulars but your talk page was empty so it seemed logical to assume you were a new editor. Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

You posted on my account that the "Commonwealth Games of Virginia" article I created was up for speedy deletion, and it is gone already. Can you please get me a copy of the article so I can use that as a basis to a new article with non-copyrighted and get permission from copyright owners? I would very much appreciate not having to start over from scratch, especially the table I created. JD Lambert^(T|C) 02:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Jdlambert, You need to enable your email address (in preferences). If you do that, I can email it to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I found the setting and enabled it. Thanks! JD Lambert^(T|C) 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paragon-logo-full-gradient.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — trlkly 12:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SPhilbrick, I just wanted to say thanks for the work on the Incesticide page (it's a page on my watchlist because I added a few sourced things to it so I saw the recent edits and talk page discussion). As it happens, there's a discussion about photos from a high school yearbook which I believe are under copyright, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Would you help weigh in on these, if you can?

They are: [1] [2] [3]

I thank you in advance for any help you can offer. Amsgearing (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing is canvassing you because he likes what you said about copyright being automatic, which is certainly true for the 1990 liner notes. But for a 1970 publication, the laws were completely different, and did require a copyright notice, according to the info that Commons provides to its uploaders. If you're familiar with such things, your comments would indeed be useful. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon is emotionally attached to his 1970 yearbook because he went to the school and needs to add images from the yearbook to Wikipedia because.... well, I really don't know why. I'm just looking for an opinion on this which is more informed than his, and more unbiased. Amsgearing (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing, Dealing with copyright issues can be very complicated. One of the complications is the copyright laws vary by country and have been changed over the years. This means that a photo might be subject to full copyright in one country but public domain in another. Even if we limit ourselves to US issues, (which seem to apply to the liner notes and to your question), there can be still complications. For example, even if you know when a photo was taken (which itself is not an easy question prior to digital photographs), the date the photo was taken is often irrelevant. The key date is publication date, which is sometimes easy to ascertain and sometimes not.

There are two periods of time (if we are talking about publication date) for which there is a fair amount of clarity. The US became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989. Anything published after that date, whether text or photos, is automatically subject to copyright, even if no copyright notice is included (subject to exceptions, of course, such as works of the federal government which are automatically public domain.)

The second period of time is all of history up to 1923. Anything published (in the US) prior to 1923 is now in the public domain. It may have been subject to copyright at the time it was produced but all those copyrights are expired. Unfortunately, this leaves a 66 year period of time during which one has to tread carefully, and in some cases search directories of copyright registrations.

The liner notes question was easy because it was post 1989. Just barely, but it was after that date, so the material is automatically copyrighted, and can be only used if the copyright holder has either declared it to be public domain or otherwise provided an acceptable license.

I understand your questions relate to a 1970 yearbook which falls in the complicated span of time. I see the deletion discussion at Commons and it appears like a sensible back-and-forth discussion of issues.

That does remind me of one additional complication. As difficult as copyright is to ascertain (and precisely because it is so difficult), the decision about including in Wikimedia is based on our copyright policy, which is not identical to copyright law. As is probably obvious, there is nothing prohibited by copyright law would be acceptable under our copyright policy, but they can be things that are acceptable according to the law that are not acceptable according to our policy. Our policy is deliberately conservative. One example of this relates to text, where we take a more conservative view regarding the use of quotations. We typically require that editors use a shorter quotation than might be permitted under the law. With respect to photos, it might mean that we want clear evidence that the material is public domain, not just a strong likelihood. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Amsgearing, As an addendum, I do feel I learned a fair amount about copyright, although one of the challenges the more I learn the more I realize how complicated it is. However, most of my copyright work relates to text. While the copyright laws typically cover text and photos the issues are sometimes different. I happen to be a commons administrator, but I am not especially active in copyright issues involving photos and I generally defer to the Commons regulars, who are closer to the issues that I am. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from my notes, only TWO items, not especially long, came from RACKSPACE:

• quote=Prior to 1960 (1945), the Army developed a huge machine called ENIAC ... their places in the old computer rooms and were being called 'data centers.'

I didn't take all of the words, just part of it (per the elipsis)

• Up until the early 1960s, computers were primarily used by government agencies. They were large mainframes stored in rooms– what we call a “datacenter” today.

2 sentences, one after the other - I could have forced an elipsis or two - is that what you want?

Please review and, when you see that I did not just do a large size copy and paste, which perhaps other pre-existing sections may be, please restore. Thanks in Advance.

P.S. My comment on the remove of the "hat note" may be out of place, but that doesn't seem to be the main focus of your intervention, if I'm reading you correctly. Pi314m (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to rush you, but... the "at 17:05, 24 October 2018" version of the article is where I put in the pair of Rackspace citations/quotations - and it's clear that . . . my notes are correct - I didn't overstep CopyVio.

The Wiki page to which you directed me says ""A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source."

It now looks like you disliked my "HatNote" removal text, and shot for the wrong claim.

While we're all human, and hence my "good-faith intervention" label on this. I'd like to just add that only once did I CopyVio, as per details below, and you can see it was 386 days ago, in PDP-14, in the section (that I) named "Instructions."
I had selected a few system instructions, and rather than copy their names and rewrite what/how they worked, I retained the original wording. I hadn't done it before nor have I done so since. (My rewordings are what's in the PDP-14 article) Pi314m (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pi314m, It is generally our policy, when detecting what appears to be a copyright issue as part of a single edit or sequence of edits by the same editor, to do a "rollback" which restores the article to the version prior to the beginning of the sequence of edits. I know many new editors don't quite understand why this is done, and I can explain further if necessary. If parts of your edit or edits are not violations of our copyright policy, you are free to reinstate them.

You asked " I could have forced an ellipsis or two - is that what you want?". No, that's not what I want. Even if you don't do an exact copy paste and omit several words using an ellipsis or even change some of the words, you are committing what is called a close paraphrase. It is still a violation of our copyright policy. What I want you to do is write material in your own words and then add a reference if your words are based on some source.

I had asked you to read Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I made that request because it appeared to me that you didn't understand what we mean by a citation. You haven't said anything in the above that persuades me you understand. Have you read it? S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I did, but just to be sure I am answering your question as I best understand it, I re-read it. I do know what a citation is.

When I signed an edit "some sections could use in-line refs, some could use more, but the article has nearly 100 references, so the ARTICLE doesn't need a HatNote" I see that I was correct -- Wiki uses a SECTION HatNote for SECTIONS that need to have references (or, if there is one, but there are multiple paragraphs with lots of detail, MORE citations are needed).

I'm sorry if my "could use in-line refs" may have been misunderstood as "could, but don't need to have" : 100 references on a single sentence, an obviously absurd overdose, would not help if the rest of the article lacks references.

Please note that I did not CopyVio - but if you "shot" for the wrong reason (CopyVio) but were correct about my misunderstanding of Citations, a more gentle, friendly (not a Wiki requirement, just a nice idea) approach would have been to restore the HatNote -and- "lecture" me via my Talk Page.

IMPORTANT POINT: I did _not_ copy Rackspace material into the article!

What I did do was copy their wording into my |quote= to make it clear that what I said was backed up by THEIR wording.

To answer your question. I do understand - per my example about PDP-14 from over a year ago. Pi314m (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Keep up the good work. AkataJerry King (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)