Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113→Archive 115

Ayushman Bharat Yojana

Hi Sphilbrick - on 10 February you carried out mass rev-dels at Ayushman Bharat Yojana - the same user has re-added what, from my memory, looks like the same additions.
Could I please ask you to rev-del these, and take some action to prevent a re-occurrence - the user has 32 edits, so standard protection would not be enough. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor

Thanks for the copy vio edit, I was suspicious, but I'm not that good with text copyrights. However I've been with this editor (see their talk) they are persistent and bullheaded, they will put it back, just wanted to give you a heads up. Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas Scott Article

Hi Sphilbrick

Thanks for hiding my edits on the Nicholas Scott Article. I do see that they were too similar to the articles i quoted, and violated the copyright.

I thought i was being more helpful sticking as closely to the quoted articles as possible but i realise this was wrong. I will not do that again.

Are you able to un hide or allow me to unhide the edits and i will re-write them. I stupidly did not keep a copy of the text i wrote (another lesson!). It took me quite a long time to write up those edits so i would so appreciate it if i could re-write them and not lose all that time.

I can make the necessary edits asap

Thank you

JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@JaneBotha94: I unhid the material temporarily— please let me know when you have what you need.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have copied it.

I will now rewrite it, so is not in breach of copyright

THank you

JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lon Safko Article

Hi... I recently updated an article on Lon Safko, and though I am taking pains to find and publish authentic sources for this article; you have reverted all my edits. I will appreciate if you could very kindly revert all these edits. TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaz2020 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to notice the edit summary I left: Copyright issue re link--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. I truly appreciate your response. Actually I have attended few of Lon Safko's online workshops and I truly believe that he deserve a proper & authentic place on Wikipedia, and for this reason I have started this edit on his profile, which I have learned have a few issues. As I am new in Wikipedia, I will appreciate if you could please help me in this regard and guide me how to improve Lon Safko's profile on Wikipedia. Your support and cooperation will be really appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaz2020 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ayaz2020: You are most welcome to work on improving the article. However, you must respect our Copyright Policy. I urge you to visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse, where experienced editors are willing to help new editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick I truly appreciate your guidance. Let me know if I get a written permission from Lon Safko, will that work?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying but I suspect it won't work. You don't need written permission from the subject of an article to write the article. If you are talking about arranging permission for the text of his biography don't think that's a good next step. While it is often the case that text written for an organization is written neutrally enough that it can be used in Wikipedia if permission is provided, in most cases a biography written by the subject won't meet our neutrality standards even if it is properly licensed. I'm also struggling to understand what you mean when you say " Let me know if I get a written permission from Lon Safko". How on earth would I know if you got written permission? If you mean you are going to ask him to file it with OTRS, I am NOT RS eight and can look at it but I won't know that it came in unless someone tells me. I urge you not to ask him to file it with OTRS.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

More copyvio issues at Mountain Lakes, New Jersey

The same editor has been copying and adding copyvio content to Mountain Lakes, New Jersey. In addition to the article versions that may need to be addressed is the issue of trying to educate a good faith editor who simply doesn't understand Wikipedia policy or respond to messages. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I did look, but I didn't see a clear enough violation to do an RD1.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rev Del request

Hi Sphilbrick - could I please ask you yo rev-del the edits at Bangor Grammar School back to 17 October 2019 - there have been multiple unsourced accusations paedophilia and other sexual claims against teachers - You may with to deal with the latest named account at the same time - thanking you in anticipation - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arjayay: For future use it would be better to email me with such a request.
I looked at the history starting with 17 October, but much of that was ordinary vandalism. I did a revision deletion when the edits were more problematic.
Email me if you think I missed something.
I see that you left a warning for one of the contributors. The warning suggests they will be blocked if they do it again, so I won't block now but let me know if they do it again.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert a reversion?

I see that you reverted my good faith edits of Lantern. However, there's a problem: you reverted the entire body of work for one reason, which negated a lot more edits than just that one reason. I suggest that you undo your reversion, and I will solve the problem.

Here's what happened, inadvertently. While expanding the History section, I copied info from another WP article about Parisian street lights – see Street light#Preindustrial era. Since that paragraph existed and was referenced, I copied it along with the citation. It was that paragraph that you object to. Rightfully so, as it turns out, since I visited that site after your revision and have seen the plagiarism. At the time, however, I had no idea. And so I went on my copy-editing way, with lots of other changes to rather mixed-up article.

If you reinstate the reversion, I propose to fix the plagarism in Lantern (my accident) and in Street light (someone else's mistake). A two-for-one special, plus the reinstatement will include all the other copy-editing, etc., that I had done during that revision.

— Molly-in-md (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done (To clarify, I undid the RD1)
Please note Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. All done now, in Lantern and Street light#Preindustrial era. — Molly-in-md (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Problems

Hi, my username is littlecucumber. This morning, I made some changes to the Wikipedia page Gathering Blue because I noticed it was quite empty and I added some of the symbolic things in teh story. However, when I went back to it, I found that you deleted all my work. With all due respect, please explain to me why. All the facts I wrote were true and I even listed some sources I got it from. If it is concerning plagirism, I quoted where I got it from and I never took it as my own work, but th websites work. Please get back to me ASAP so that I know why you deleted everything. --Littlecucumber (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Littlecucumber: When you add a comment on a talk page, the easiest way to do it is the "new section" link near the top of the page. Please also remember to sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Signatures. You manually added your post to the top of the page which is not where I look for new messages — convention is that new messages belong on the bottom of the page. You also used the wrong heading level. I understand you are a new editor and these are things you will learn.
You should also become aware that experienced editors use the edit summary to explain their edits. You don't need a lot of detail, but some detail will be helpful. For example, you are coming to me because you do not know why I removed your edits but I explained it in an edit summary:
Reverted good faith edits by Littlecucumber (talk): Copyroght ossie re https://www.litcharts.com/lit/gathering-blue/characters/kira
In general, with some rare exceptions, material must be written in your own words and properly referenced. While you did include a reference, you didn't write the material in your own words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks for your work on revdel! ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@El cid, el campeador:Thanks!--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks-you!S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Love Smiths

Hi, my user name is Lumacido. Apparently you delete the mentioned page for being "Unambiguous advertising". Which is a bit weird for me as I keep it neutral and follow the style of other companies. Can you tell me why you considered it unambiguous advertising? Thanks. 9:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The article reads as if it were written by someone associated with the organization. While it does have four references, three do little more than establish that the company exists. That's necessary but far from sufficient. The fourth is simply an advertising site. I see no evidence of discussion in general media talking about the company, the products, the customers, or any of the types of discussion that is in articles about most companies.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that we use the term advertising to mean blatant statements such as "please buy this product". While such a statement would be quite inappropriate, the term promotion is used in a more general sense (and in fact leads to a page with more discussion). The article at the time it was moved to main space was unmistakable promotion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sturzkampfgeschwader 2

I have reverted. Please ask about content first. That website copied the Siege of Malta (World War II) article on wikipedia which I wrote. Dapi89 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dapi89: That's not the way it works.
You failed to identify the source of the material in your edit.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok fine. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 at Women in Red

March 2020, Volume 6, Issue 3, Numbers 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159


Happy Women's History Month from all of us 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) 19:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lu Parker

Please see this article, a large block of text was just put back in after your copyvio revert. It's probably the same text again. MB 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@MB: thanks for the heads up, I reverted it--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which of two photos is preferable in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The OTRS Barnstar
For all your behind-the-scenes work to keep OTRS running like a well-oiled machine! —  JGHowes  talk 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


@JGHowes: Thanks!S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

John Philips

How that page is copyrighted? No one is copyrighted on someone else's story. Now I understand well why they say that Wikipedia is the refuge of millions of mystified. The truth is that it is a shame, the books are a billion times more valuable than their tiny information. Diegocalp (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Diegocalp: > How that page is copyrighted?

I come to be aware that many people don't know the basics about copyright. Virtually everything written these days is subject to copyright – there are some rare exceptions such as work of the federal government, but that doesn't remotely apply. Many years ago, one actually had to file for copyright but it's automatic now and doesn't even require the use of a copyright symbol. People can release such information into the public domain or license it for use but that has to be done affirmatively and with notice.

As an aside, did you notice that you were copying and pasting non-English into the English Wikipedia?


>No one is copyrighted on someone else's story.

I'd be curious what led you to say this. Are schools teaching this? It is absolutely not true, and I can't think why anyone would think it is.

> Now I understand well why they say that Wikipedia is the refuge of millions of mystified.

Interesting sentence, but if "they" say it, they never said it to me. I've never heard it and I don't even know what it means.

>The truth is that it is a shame, the books are a billion times more valuable than their tiny information. I'm honestly not following at all. What is a shame? What books? What information?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

El auto traductor escribió desconcertadas. Pero la palabra era mistificadores. Diegocalp (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

No es la escuela la que enseña algo así. Simplemente entiendo lo de escribir en español en una página que estaba en inglés. O sea, comprendo que sea un error. Pero dije que nadie tiene derechos de autor, en específico porque John Philips está muerto. La historia de una persona muerta así como el libro de un clásico muerto puede ser copiado Miles de veces sin que nadie lo prohíba, siempre y cuando no sea un sofisma lo que se está poniendo. Por eso hay Miles de editoriales que tiene el Don Quijote de La Mancha. Y Cervantes ya no puede cobrar derechos de autor. Diegocalp (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Además en caso de que haya tanto inconveniente con los derechos de autor. ¿Para que existe Wikipedia? Pensé que la plataforma era para que las personas que tenían datos sobre lo que se habla pidieran proporcionar sus conocimientos. Diegocalp (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not speak Spanish. I did use Google translate to get a sense of what you are writing about and you are wrong about copyright but it will be tiresome to converse that way.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Philips

Hola otra vez. Acabo de leér bien las reglas de Wikipedia. Primero que nada me disculpo por haber reaccionado de forma agresiva el otro día, es que me tomo bastante Tiempo escribir todo eso y me molestó bastante que fuera eliminado. Nada más quería aclarar que yo no copié y pegué de un sitio en internet, sino que las reglas las conozco de libros que he leído. Por ello, me imagino que sí borro lo que yo escribí nada más fue porque estaba copiando en español algo que debía de estar en inglés. Saludos Diegocalp (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


Resultados de búsqueda Resultado de traducción Español Inglés Hola otra vez Acabo de leér bien las reglas de Wikipedia. Primero que nada me disculpo por haber reaccionado de forma agresiva el otro día, es que me tomo bastante Tiempo escribir todo eso y me molestan bastante que fuera eliminado. Nada más quería aclarar que no copié y pegué de un sitio en internet, sino que las reglas las conozco de libros que escuchó. Por eso, me imagino que sí borro lo que yo escribí nada más fue porque estaba copiando en español algo que tenía que estar en inglés. Saludos Hello again I just read the Wikipedia rules well. First of all I apologize for having reacted aggressively the other day, is that it took me a long time to write all that and it bothers me enough that it was eliminated. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't copy and paste from a website, but I know the rules of books I heard. Therefore, I imagine that if I delete what I wrote, it was just because I was copying something in Spanish that had to be in English. regards. I send it translated by doubts. Diegocalp (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you an admin?

Are you an admin? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QEDK#Would_you_help? , may you help? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am actively involved in the New Delhi riot issue although not with the content itself. I saw your comments over there. It is correct to say that neither AN nor ANI are the right place for content disputes. That doesn't give the impression there is no issue with the content of the article. It has nothing to do with this particular incident — it is always the case that AN and ANI are places to discuss editor conduct, while article content issues should be discussed on the article talk page. There is an active discussion on the article talk page.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I also urge you to read WP:FORUMSHOP. It is understandable that you were not aware of this guideline, but now you are.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I know that, it is not forumshop, giving links wherever raised earlier, the user her/himself suggested to convince an admin, noone responded on notice board, just trying to discuss with some admin if someone can understand and see my point. Yet I appreciate your good faith assumption of myself not knowing forumshop. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for I could not make it clear. "ANI not the place" does not gives the impression, but the "...see facts out on Wiki" gives the impression that no issue with content of the article. Specifically the request
If my comments were removed then
"... it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." should be replaced by
"... it just shows how pissed off they are." 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am lost. you made reference to "...see facts out on Wiki". Where is this?S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
See [1]
Somewhat in the middle is "Serial Number 54129, That is a mirror of this site which (As Gråbergs Gråa Sång rightly puts), is an Indian version of InfoWars). Not sure if it was a typo or deliberate, either way it just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." Please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay I see the sentence. If I read what you wrote above "...should be replaced by..." you are asking me to edit someone else's comments, which is unlikely to happen without an exceedingly good reason.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#North_East_Delhi_riots
Did you see the point now? I mean if someone wrote "... just shows how pissed off they are to see facts out on Wiki." this gives an impression that there is no issue with the article. In response of which I wrote my objection, which was removed by the person. when I asked if so then you should also remove "facts out on Wiki." so as to make it " just shows how pissed off they are." 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into it but refactoring someone else's comments is seriously frowned upon, with rare exceptions for actions which might be considered libelous and that's not remotely the case, so I don't intend to do anything about that comment. There's a lot of issues with that article and this is not one of the important ones.S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Although dissappointed, yet thanking you for your consideration. 2405:204:1384:72A9:20A6:45A1:974F:EFF7 (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Ardolino

Sphilbrick, thank you very much for helping make the References for Edward Ardolino conform to the standard Wikipedia method, especially in the area of multiple-use References. Your assistance is very much appreciated, as I am the newbie who created the page and was not up to fixing these problems. However, a few problems remain.

When the page was first moved to the mainspace, all of the citations aligned correctly to the text, but, as sometimes happens, I'm sure, in the process of review and revision, problems have arisen with 3 of the citations. I'm eager to realign them, but can't seem to do so. Could you kindly help with this, starting with the first citation, which is in the Info Box?

Actually, I would prefer no citations in the Info Box. Placement there is the result of a revision. I see that in some major articles like Thomas Edison there are no citations in the Info Box. Can't we just begin the citations with Ardolino's birth in the text under Biography? This is where the citations began when the article was first moved. The reference that documents his birth is currently listed as Ref. 3, Birth Record. It should be Ref. 1 regardless of whether the citations are deleted from the Info Box or not. (The current Ref. 1 (Barnes, James) should be moved to the end of the line for The Stanford White Memorial Doors, under Other Works. It will probably show up as Ref. 75.)

Another reason I would like to delete the citations from the Info Box is that Ref. 2, shown there, is redundant with Ref. 16, which documents Ardolino's death in the text (see the last line under the heading Biography). At that point on the page these two references, #2 and #16, which both cite his NYT obituary, appear right next to each other. Of the two, I would rather keep Ref. 16 (while deleting Ref. 2 entirely), because Ref. 16 is used to document several of his works throughout the Wiki page. Ref. 16 only needs to be modified to say Subscription Required, and the title can begin with his name, EDWARD ARDOLINO. (Yes, it was written in all caps in the NY Times.)

Even though I'm in Edit mode I am unable to change any citations under References. When I try, I hit a dead end and don't see how to proceed. I must be missing a step, but I don't know what it is. I would welcome your advice. I entered everything using Visual Edit, because it was easier for me as a newbie. It would be great if, in the future, I could make these revisions myself.

Two more smaller problems: I attempted to delete Note F (Under the heading Goodhue and Lawrie Projects, Church of the Heavenly Rest), as it was an erroneous combination of two other Notes. But the F is still present as a superscript, and the F is still under Notes, although the line is empty. Both of these mentions of F need to be deleted.

Finally, under Other Works, National State Bank, the asterisk at the end of the line needs to be deleted, and Note I needs to be added (will actually be Note H, after the preceding revision). How does one add a Note? I only see the ability to add a Citation.


If you could kindly help with the above, I think everything will be back in order. Your help is most appreciated. It took 15 years to research this article, and I am most interested in seeing it appear correctly. Thanks again! E54495a (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a big fan of references in the INFOBOX, although I can think of some situations where it's almost inevitable.
Before making specific comments I'll make the general observation that many editors also try to avoid references in the lead, on the argument that he could lead recapitulates information in the remainder of the article and that's where the reference belongs. Whether intentional or accidental, I note no citations in the lead.
Handling the first one seems straightforward enough. the opening sentence of the biography section starts:
Ardolino was born into a long line of stone carvers ..
why not change it to:
Ardolino was born on 20 November 1883, into a long line of stone carvers...
Then add the citation after the date and remove it from the INFOBOX.
I'll respond to other questions over time but I thought I'd start with one.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, thanks for your assistance. I strongly agree with you - I don't like references in the Infobox or in the lead either.
I began by following your suggestion and added the birth date to the first sentence under Biography. There is a citation at the end of the sentence, although strangely, it differs according to whether I'm in Read or Edit. In Read, the superscript says Ref. 3 (which is linked to correct citation wording). In Edit, the superscript says Ref. 1 (which is linked to incorrect citation wording). Why would the superscripts differ like this? Obviously the correct citation begins with the words Birth Record, and it should be Ref. 1.
Also, I'm unable to delete Ref. 1 from the Infobox as requested. I did not create the Infobox; I entered the article with Visual Editor. I'm not familiar with how to delete a citation from an Infobox, or to delete one from a Citation List, for that matter. Clicking on it does not help. Could you kindly advise me? I was, on the other hand, able to revise the Occupation in the Infobox from Sculptor to Architectural Sculptor, which is more accurate. In doing so, a Red warning showed up that said, Warning: Page using Template: Infobox person with unknown parameter "practice." I have no idea what that means, but it seems to have disappeared.
To recap, I don't see how to revise the wording in Ref. 1 to reflect the Birth Record instead of what's already there, nor do I see how to delete Superscript 1 from the Infobox. Sorry, but I'm stuck. E54495a (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I can fix the reference in the INFOBOX but we have a bigger problem. That reference points to:
this book and I'm not seeing any evidence that his birthdate is supported there. if you can show me that the birthdate is there that I can remove the reference from the INFOBOX and place it next to the date in the article.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Sphilbrick. It's fixed. The particulars seemed too complicated to explain, so I was bold and went in and fixed it myself. The correct references were all there; a few had gotten jumbled through some well-intentioned editing. There are only 3 small matters that I could use help with if you have time:
1. Under Additional Historic/Landmark Works, 4th bullet. Immediately after the bullet there is a dead link and an H Note. Both the bad link and the H should be deleted.
2. Under Other Works, almost halfway down the list is a line beginning with National State Bank. At the end of the line, the asterisk should be deleted and an H Note entered in its place.
3. This is the most complicated fix of the three. Citation 14, which is the NYT obituary: The obituary is available through ProQuest Historical Newspapers. A subscription is required. I have the URL but I didn't enter it because when I did, it came up as an error in red. This would have taken the page offline and I don't want to do that. I'll give you the URL in case you know how to enter it into the citation correctly. Another Wikipedian told me the words Subscription Required must appear in the citation. If you don't know how to do this, please let me know and leave it as is. I can go to the Teahouse for further help. Thanks. Here it is:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/107221134/fulltextPDF/9F7B5FA31258429DPQ/2?accountid=42628
P.S. Could you kindly tell me how to enter a Note and reuse a Note? I only know how to do Citations. Thanks. E54495a (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I've never done a note so not the right person to ask. You might try checking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Please can you give me back the text since some paragraphs had been edited with original content. The copyright issue will be corrected by citing the blog that had some of the bio info. Harvardgradec (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_111&oldid=951836832"