Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 105

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107→Archive 110

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Copyrightnotice(thisworkmaybereproducedinwholeorinpartfornoncommercialpurposesaslongasfullattributiontothisworkisgiven).gif
This work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.

This is about the published "report" by Onder, Harun (6 February 2019). The Mobility of Displaced Syrians: An Economic and Social Analysis (PDF). World Bank. p. 3. Retrieved 3 August 2019. which on page 3 (Rights and Permissions) after stating the "general rule" for Word Bank publications (also repeated in their website here: https://inquiries.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/894099-copyright-requests-to-post-or-use-a-world-bank-do) has a copyright (automatic copyright verification would look for 'World Bank'), However specific to the report: "this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given." I believe my edits are "no commercial purpose," and "full attribution to the source" and "in part." Would you help me to clear the issue for this specific case? (For your reference Copyright issue re https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31205/9781464814013.pdf?sequence=2) Thanks in advance BlueMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

BlueMadrigal, This is a commonly misunderstood issue. While Wikipedia itself is noncommercial, the contents are intended to be freely available to others subject to the CC 3.0 license, which does permit commercial usage so we cannot incorporate material subject to a noncommercial restriction. I wish someone would reach out to the World Bank and persuade them to change their licensing as it is fairly common for people to try to use World Bank documents in Wikipedia articles. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
O.K. We can't quote 'in part' (reproduced) from the source. I 'quoted' and stated it is a quote from their final conclusions (already compacted and alteration would loose the meaning) and falls to category 'reproduced.' But I also created graphs (using wiki graph), tables (wiki table), and lists which summarized the content from the report. (a list on looting [1]) A factual statement (a number and a destination) "About 1/5 of all residential buildings in the 15 top populated cities suffered damage." [2]. How is using facts from the source relates to the CC 3.0 license. My understanding from your response is that we can't produce anything from this source. Isn't there anyway/method/form Wikipedia permits us use the "factual" information? BlueMadrigal (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
BlueMadrigal, While this: Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay so does not have the same force as a guideline or policy, I think it includes good advice. It is my observation that many new editors and simply put them in block quotes or quotation marks to avoid the effort of rewriting them. While short quotations are appropriate and as the essay points out in some rare cases preferable to rewriting, overuse of quotations especially long quotes is something to be avoided.
Pure facts are not subject to copyright. However while some list of pure factual, some are not. A list of the 50 states is a factual list and is not subject to copyright. A list of the top 50 films according to some publication is there considered opinion and is subject to copyright. I expect some wag to say it is a fact that such and such a publication picked the following 50 films as their top films but that's not acceptable.
A sentence can include facts but the way it is constructed reflects the effort of the writer and in most cases can be rewritten in one's own words. As an example, you could say "a survey of the 15 top populated cities revealed 20% of the residential buildings in those cities suffered damage". Same facts but not a literal copy and paste. Excerpting a brief portion of a report which acts as the overall summary, if properly quoted or included in a block quote should be fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:CCP Single ILI cover.JPG

Hello. I re-categorized the image as free in only the US. Would you un-delete the previous versions of the image. Thanks. -- George Ho (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, Sorry, I'm not following. Why do you have the authority to declare that an image owned by A & M records Inc. is free in the US? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you think the front cover is copyrightable in the US? Am I not allowed to change the copyright status? The background color is plain white. The text length is not long but very short. Also, there are no complex icons, like a horn that A&M regularly uses. I saw just two simple squares on the lower-right corner. I don't see anything that would make the image meet the US originality standards. Here's c:COM:TOO#United States for more details. Nevertheless, the image was published as part of single release in the UK and Europe, and the UK's originality standards for copyright protection is very low, i.e. about as high as the logo of the Edge (magazine). --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

LOL!

Gotta love those good faith edits! [3] We have to laugh, don't we? Otherwise it would get just too depressing... -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I found this through an OTRS report. I actually asked them if they had a published reliable source for the fact that he was not a potato. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Even better! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Lost

I realise what happened on the interrogation article: the sentence(s) that came from the Telegraph article was pasted in by accident. Do you have the portion that wasn't from the Telegraph article, about interviews under caution? Anywikiuser (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Anywikiuser, Context please. Which article? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Interrogation. The paragraph under the "Interview under caution" heading of the second edit I made. It would be convenient to not have to write that out again. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Anywikiuser, I emailed it to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Black Book (company)

I understand the the methodology section I added was copyrighted by Black Book Research. Although I might argue why a company would invoke copyright on language included in an article about itself that was also approved to appear on its website. I believe the information is pertinent to the article. I did my best to pull out the subjective language. What do I need to do to allow the information to pass inspection?

Also, you rolled back not only the methodology section, but all proceeding edits. The majority of those edits were not related to that section. Is there any way to access the content of those changes? The dates have been crossed out and are un-clickable.

Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ubiquitouslarry, It is not the case of arguing that someone might invoke copyright— copyright is automatic even if the material doesn't include a copyright symbol.
It is common practice when encountering a copyright issue to do a rollback which includes all consecutive edits by the same editor. I temporarily reversed the revision deletion so that you can recover edits not covered by the copyright problem. Please let me know when you are done so I can reset the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Got ’em. Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Association Dublin

Hi Sphilbrick, was just wondering if you could review my Mayo Association Dublin page [link here: Mayo_Association_Dublin]. I've re-introduced it to Wikipedia and changed it. Thanks a lot, Tomás Tomás Deb (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomás Deb, It looks better, but I'll add the important caveat that I don't review articles, so I'll leave a more formal review for others.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, TomásTomás Deb (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

oberlin

What you have removed (Oberlin College) was not copied from anywhere, it was written by me from scratch, except what's in quotes. Please check it again. I did not even know of the page you accuse me of copying from. deisenbe (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I cited the source in my edit summary: Link. I double-checked, and it is far more than the short excerpt in quotes. The CopyPatrol tool identified an 87% matchS Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I undid the RevDel (temporarily) so you can see for yourself.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot see the match. Please make it clearer. deisenbe (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Part of your edit:

In 1834, in response to a series of slavery debates at Lane Theological Seminary, the trustees of the Cincinnati, Ohio, school voted to prohibit antislavery agitation among its students and faculty.


Copyrighted source:

In 1834, in response to a series of slavery debates at Lane Theological Seminary, the trustees of the Cincinnati, Ohio school voted to prohibit antislavery agitation among its students and faculty.


Looks identical to me. What say you?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Just in case the ping failed.

How can i translate an article ?

Hello,

You deleted my first article (History of science and technology in Argentina) because it didn’t respect some of Wikipedia's guidelines. I discovered that the article i wanted to translate from the hispanophone Wikipedia to the Anglophone’s one was translated in english but on an external website. The Wikipedia’s article in spanish is older than the translation on the other website. How can i translate the (featured) article in english without violating the copyright ? Aleksandr Sokolin (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Aleksandr Sokolin, Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate, including the need for an edit summary identifying the source. That edit summary helps in two ways, it provides the required attribution, and signifies to reviewers that it might be a false positive for a copyright issue match.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. foobar (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I emailed you

A few days ago I emailed you about your deleting my photo of a historical marker and the text taken from that marker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alta_Loma,_Texas&action=history

This is an official State of Texas Historical marker. I have contacted the Texas office responsible for markers and they say there is no copyright violation for posting pictures of any Texas Historical marker and no copyright on the text in this case. As your reason for deletion you gave a reference to a disorganized text file [not intended as a criticism I just couldn't think of another way to characterize it] on a random website that posts pictures people have taken of historical markers. There are MANY such websites that post pictures of markers (including this one -- Wikipedia) but they cannot claim copyright on other people's pictures nor for the text itself as they simply copied it from the markers. foobar (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki name, Early in my Wikipedia career I was working on an article about some Revolutionary war event and I took and posted a photo of a historical marker. It was taken down which stunned me because I had assumed that taking such a photo would be permitted but it was explained to me that virtually all text is copyrighted and can only be posted if the copyright holder is provided explicit permission (with some important exceptions for federal works automatically in the public domain and works old enough to be in the public domain.)
I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission. I would love to hear officially from the Texas office responsible for markers explaining why it is not a problem because I would be much happier to have the marker up to take it down, but I need to see something in writing from someone who has the authority to make the statement. The statement probably has to be Something beyond "yes it's okay" such as a provision in Texas state law designating historical markers as free of copyright, but we'll cross that bridge when we see the statement.
Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a pain but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and a secondhand claim that Texas says it's okay isn't quite enough. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
<quote>I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission.</quote>
But Wikipedia does post pictures of Texas historical markers, many of them. Will a copy of their email replay satisfy this?foobar (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, It will be a start. I hope it points out a provision of Texas law, which may explain the others you mention. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I rather not "start" down a new trail. If you will accept a copy of the email I received from the department of the State of Texas responsible for Historical Markers as an end of this. I will be happy to provide it but not as part of a continuing dialog.
Wiki name, Just to be clear, I will be very happy if it turns out that Texas does treat the text on historical markers as being in the public domain or at least a satisfactorily free license. I wish all states would do so but as far as I know this isn't the case. I will be happy to be proven wrong. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
OK you win, here's a link to a screen capture of an email from the office responsible for Texas Historical markers. http://oi63.tinypic.com/mo5qg.jpg If you want an unredacted version you will have to give me an email address where you can be reached as I'm unwilling to post the persons name and email address nor mine on a public place on the web. foobar (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I sent you an email. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I replied foobar (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that you have all the evidence you asked for proving Texas Historical markers and their text is not copyrighted, seems like it's time to revert your reversion?foobar (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Let's see if I can find your email, I don't recall it. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I got a notice on 7 August you sent me an email but I don't see the email. I just double checked my inbox and also checked in two other locations where I sometimes get emails other than my main inbox but don't see it in any of the three locations. I have hundreds of unread emails so I only looked on 7 August. Is that the right date? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I tried again to access the the image you sent me and I had a little better luck but I have serious concerns. The person states "in addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers". while I understand that you would find that statement compelling, whenever I hear someone say there is no copyright, it turns out it said by someone who doesn't understand copyright.
I can't quite read the email address but it looks like it came from someone named Jim from a Comcast.net email address. At a bare minimum, we would need an email address associated with the Texas Historical Commission. This clearly is not and doesn't even include a last name.
This appears to be a list of contacts at THC and I don't see anyone named Jim. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I just sent an email to Lynnette Cen, who was identified as the office manager with responsibility for State Historical Markers.
While we are waiting for her to respond, you might want to take a glance at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_13#Copyright_status:_historical_marker_text S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Response will be Wednesday at earliest. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am Jim. Look at the From address. It's from the person at Texas Historical Commission replying to me. As long as we are making no progress at the moment. I argue at a minimum you should replace my photograph of the marker. It is legal in the U.S. to photograph anything in or from a public place. Virtually all markers are on or can be photographed from a public place as their intent is to be seen.

The Wikipedia article on Photography and the law says:

"Public property

... 

   It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards.[44]"

... 

   Photographing private property from within the public domain is not illegal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_States foobar (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A week ago you received a reply to your email to the Historical Marker person at the state of Texas confirming what she wrote me. It is way past time you reinstate my page. To review, the person responsible for these issues at the State of Texas confirmed the following to me in an email:
"The State of Texas claims no copyright on Texas Historical Markers or pictures of them taken by individuals nor the publication of these pictures.
In addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers.
Physical access to a small number of markers in order to photograph them is restricted, though the photos and their text are not restricted."
foobar (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Yes, and I'm trying to determine next steps. It supports your position, but I want more input because it is not consistent with our usual requirements. I'll reach out to someone today.S Philbrick(Talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This is verging on the Twilight Zone. This began with your "hunch" there "might" be something wrong with posting a marker -- which is done in many places on Wikipedia. It has now been three week, and after getting the permissions you were asking for from the the State of Texas you're still searching for some kind of objection to support you're hunch. You have produced "no evidence" for you're hunch and I have produced real evidence to the contrary. Please bring an end to this foobar (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I can't stop stop you from believing what you want to believe, but your summary doesn't bear close resemblance to the actual sequence of events. It didn't start with a "hunch". As I explained earlier, it started when a photo of a marker I uploaded was removed on the basis of copyright. in subsequent years, I've done a lot of work on copyright issues. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I've learned a lot about copyright issues.
I understand why you objected to the removal. You "thought" you had checked to make sure it was okay. I asked for confirmation and you initially sent me some file I couldn't access. After spending some time, I managed to read some informal email from someone who said you could do it but that person doesn't appear to be associated with the Texas Historical Commission.
On my own (because you seemed uninterested in ascertaining the facts), I did research on the Texas Historical Commission, and reached out to that person to ask for clarification of the copyright status. It took some time for that person to respond, and while the text of what they said sounded positive, I wasn't yet convinced.
I do more work in text issues than image issues, so I contemplated contacting Commons, who have more experience with image copyright issues, to see what they thought. However, I was busy and did not get to it for a couple days at which point you responded with an irrelevant citation from the law (I'm betting you don't even know why it is irrelevant). I decided that, rather than attempt to go through Commons, I would check with our resident copyright expert. I copied you on that post. Diannaa pointed out why the permission was deficient. You have shown no interest in discussing that with her.
You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
I spent a fair amount of time researching this, because I was genuinely interested in the possibility that It was acceptable to post such pictures, but I do this as a volunteer, and I'm now done. As always, if the facts change I will change my opinion, but based on the facts presented so far, there is no rationale for restoring the image you uploaded. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sphilbrick
I have tried to keep this exchange civil. I apologize if you took my use of the word hunch poorly, but the marker you referred to in the beginning was not a Texas marker or you never said so. Also the person who removed your picture may have been in error. So you developed a belief/gut feeling from that marker that all markers in all states were or might be copyrighted. An assumption I still believe is wrong. Not only that but the person who removed your picture may have been mistaken. That assumption or extrapolation is what I was calling a hunch and you have still provided no evidence to support this assumption. I am not at all proficient at Wikipedia. Something took me to the person Diannaa's page, but I was never able to find it again. I had assumed you would recount them here. To correct one statement. Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair. I was the first person to to contact the State about thie and made every attempt to send you the evidence. But it would not have done any good anyway because you got essentially the same information for them and have still decided it is not enough. The person on the email I sent you IS with the State of Texas. And is the From on the email. She is the person who wrote the reply you got when you emailed the Texas Historical Commission. Because I had contacted her about this she let me know you had written and the day she sent replied.
The discussion is here: User_talk:Diannaa#Copyright_issue_involving_Texas_Historical_Commission_markers--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair.

I said no such thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you get that I'm on your side. I want the ability to take photos of historical markers and use them in articles. I want someone to show me that this can be done in some, many, or all states. I want each state to either pass a law putting this material into the public domain, (or provide proof that this is already the case) or give us with an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I was referring the statement where you said of me "... you seemed uninterested in ascertaining the facts ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135


Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

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

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Ashenda

Hello Sphilbrick, I stumbled upon the article about Ashenda and found that a large portion of the article was a copy/paste from http://www.tigraionline.com/bahlina.html. I've seen you already dealt with this issue a few days ago but you left the copyrighted portion of text untouched. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? Thanks in advance and happy editing. --DoebLoggs (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DoebLoggs, I think that Nthep has handled it. I may have missed something, but not going to reconstruct unless there are still open issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Honorary Doctors of the University of Nairobi

Could you take a look at this article? It showed up in CopyPatrol and is entirely copied from this, however considering it's the descriptions of awards I'm not sure what should be done. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Vermont, Heh, I actually looked at that and decided to pass. However, let's talk. A long time ago I got some good advice regarding lists from Moonriddengirl. In short, the key issue is to what extent the list incorporates originality. at one extreme, a list of the 50 states does not incorporate originality, so cannot be subject to copyright. In contrast a publication listing their choices for the top 50 movies or books or whatever does constitute originality. In between a list which may have some level of originality. If this had simply been a list of the recipients of honorary degrees it would probably be okay (from a copyright standpoint), but the inclusion of the rationale for the awards does constitute originality. I'm not about to rewrite the article to remove all the descriptions, so my current thinking is that the article should be nominated for G 12. What do you think? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Considering that it presently has copyright issues, and if we were to remove the infringing content it would have no more value than a simple category, I think G12 is the right path. Vermont (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Vermont,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Oakley country club

What do you need from me to publish the revised history? Crimsonguard63 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Crimsonguard63, As noted in the edit summary, the material was removed because it was a copyright violation.
In order to add the history to the article, it needs to be written in your own words, accompanied by references to publish reliable sources for all key points,
OR
You need to arrange for the material published at the organization's website to be freely licensed.
The first option is better, as even if the material published is freely licensed, it probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_105&oldid=927544651"