Jump to content

User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 115

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117→Archive 120

Third World Women's Alliance revert

Hi,

Thanks for monitoring copyright issues on Wikipedia! In the case of the Third World Women's Alliance, I'm copying text from the Sophia Smith Collection finding aid for the Third World Women's Alliance records, which is licensed under the Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license. I added a CC-By notice to the citation to indicate I was using copied text under a Creative Commons license. The page that you link to is only a copy of the original finding aid owned by Smith College. Please restore my edits, or let me know if there is anything else I need to do to avoid copyright issues.

Thanks! SmokedPaprika (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokedPaprika, I undid my revdel. We can discuss what else, if anything I should do, but I'm on hold at the moment with a travel agent. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
SmokedPaprika, Thanks for responding so positively. I can completely understand that if you done everything right it must be annoying to have somebody come along and do it on you. One of the challenges when dealing with copyright issues is that many websites borrow material from sources that are appropriately licensed and either failed to note the license on the site where they place the information, or worse, affirmatively assert copyright over the whole page. Those situations are annoying to deal with. In this particular case they did not assert copyright but our assumption is in the absence of a clear license, copyright is implied.
In a small coincidence, I've use material from the Sophia Smith collection before I believe, in connection with articles about women's basketball. I even visited the library at Smith where the materials are stored. I know I looked into copyright issues but my admittedly vague recollection is that I walked away without a clear understanding of the copyright status. If you could point me to the location of the license, I would be grateful as it may inspire me to go back and do some more work using their materials.
In the meantime, I undid the revision deletion, but I see there were subsequent edits so I did not reverse my edit. Let me know if you want me to do anything further, but I'm still on the phone so I might have to wait until my phone call ends before I do anything that requires real thinking. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing the revdel! The text of the finding aids at Smith College Special Collections are all licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, at the bottom of each page. So all the description of the Senda Berenson papers could be freely copied and pasted. The copyright of the materials themselves vary pretty widely, but you can email specialcollections@smith.edu for any copyright-related questions and our staff will do our best to help! If you come visit us in person after we reopen, you can always ask the archivist on duty at the reading room desk. SmokedPaprika (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokedPaprika, Thanks. Does this look familiar? File:Alumnae Gymnasium (Smith College).jpg. I took that seven years ago when I perused the collection. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Campus_Law_Centre,University_of_Delhi

Hi, Thanks for the complete draft page deletion. I am a student of the above centre.Our centre is a public institution and its website is owned by a public body. Copying from the webpage is an instruction from my professors. The copyright provided at http://clc.du.ac.in/ is used as preventive means for outsiders trying to imitate the official website. I request you to kindly excuse this case from copyright violation.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB3456789 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@AB3456789: Thanks for providing that information. However, if your professors instructed you to copy the contents of the website into a Wikipedia page, I urge you to inform them that they have requested that you break the law. Copyright is a legal matter, and cannot simply be "excused".
If the school wishes to license the contents in a way that can be used in Wikipedia they should visit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials
However, given the goal to keep outside is from trying to imitate the official website, this approach is unlikely to be useful as that license allows anyone anywhere to copy the material and edited in almost any way they choose as long as they provide attribution. In addition, it is rare that material written by an organization meets our neutrality standards so even if the school were to decide it wanted to license the text it might still not be acceptable.
Of course, it is desirable to have an article in Wikipedia about the school, but it should be written using the official website as a source for information, but the text should be written in your own words. Writing a Wikipedia article is harder than some people realize. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

copying witihn wikipedia

please explain to me what is wrong with copying from within wikipedia? if someething needs to be mentioned more then once then it should be so.

Sphilbrick Sphilbrick

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_computing

Nothing is wrong with copying within Wikipedia as long as it is clearly identified and attributed. 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) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Shan Cothi Part II

Recent edit to Shan Cothi page. There was many sources, from he BBC, Walea Online that was not copied from and you have reverted. Hours of work lost!! Could you please remove the specific copied page, and then revert other changes back. Thoses were legit pages that took hours to find. Thank you. I am only a new wiki editor, and found this page out of date and with no sources, tried my best. You came in a just deleted thre hours of work. Please try to educate me, and teach me what to do instead of deleting my whole work. Surley you can delete that specifc page you did not like and revert everything else back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:7DA7:3DE4:F86A:613F (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit to Shan Cothi page. There was many sources, from he BBC, Walea Online that was not copied from and you have reverted. Hours of work lost!! Could you please remove the specific copied page, and then revert other changes back. Thoses were legit pages that took hours to find. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:7DA7:3DE4:F86A:613F (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The material in your edit clearly appeared to be a copy of this site which has a clear copyright notice.
I see you claim that you did not copy from your sources, but the material in the edit had 100% match to the site I just linked. Can you help me understand why that would not be a copyright issue?
FYI new posts on a talk page go at the bottom not the top.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I see that the particular edit that concerned me was one of a sequence of edits. It is common practice to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits. I revision deletion only started with the problematic edit, so the earlier edits can be seen by you. If you are certain that they are not violations of copyright policy, feel free to reinstate them. however, let's discuss the one edit I identified before you restore anything so we can understand why you fought that one was okay. If I made a mistake, I will undo all of my reversion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, hours of hard work were not lost. Your edits were reverted but if you demonstrate that I made a mistake they will be reinstated in seconds. I can't believe it took hours to copy and paste a section of text, so if we conclude that the copied material should not be reinstated, but the other edits can be, again, hours of hard work are not lost but can be recovered in seconds.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
If you had a registered account, you would be getting a notification that I responded to you. You are welcome to edit without logging in but you do not get such notifications. If you need help creating an account, I can help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I freely admit to that page. I was asking you to delete everything from THAT page. But revert my legit work. I cited sources from Wales Online, Cheshire Live, BBC iPlayer and wrote in my own words. Hours of work lost. Eg I wrote a paragraph on Cothi’s radio show, and cited bbc radio Cymru? How is that copy write? I found a source naming her parents name? Deleted? How so? Source confirming her full name? Deleted? Unfair. It did take hours thank you. I am a new editor, and writing sources one by one can take time. It won’t let me revert as it has been blocked. Only you can change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:7DA7:3DE4:F86A:613F (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not established practice that it's my responsibility to restore your edits which were reverted as part of a rollback. I never said it didn't take hours for you to create these edits so stop saying that. I said the hours are not lost. Stop saying you can't revert as it has been blocked. You don't even know what blocking means. It is not true that only I can change the material. you can access all of the edits prior to the revision deletion. You've been very rude and despite that I'm going to try to help you but I'm going to do it when I have a free moment. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
As an example here is your fir.st edit S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologies. It’s just very frustrating as I am still learning on Wikipedia. I did think most of my work was a good standered. (Only the copied website). Otherwise all of my sources where reliable, and good. Editors like yourself are very helpful. I have tried to revert, but numerous revision have been frozen by you. So I am unsure what to do personally.Thank you saying you will help in a bit! Any tips would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:7DA7:3DE4:F86A:613F (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish you had held one for a few minutes but that's on me because I did encourage you to restore material yourself. However, now that you've added some edits I don't know how to restore the intervening edits. If you want, I can restore everything and simply remove the edit thing involved a copyright issue and subsequent edits, but that will also undo the most recent edit you've made. Let me know.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I don’t mind you changing it back. I can work from there. I will also make an account. Thank you for helping me, and being rude. *Meaning sorry for being rude :)

I restored the article then remove the particular problematic edit. My apologies for being a little testy, I have a grumpy 2 1/2-year-old grandson and I shouldn't let his antics affect my mood. Let me know if you need help creating an account.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello Sphilbrick, you just reverted a good faith edit I made to the Johnny Kay page. Did you not read the edit history before reverting? I said in my comment that I was preparing to add the required reference as soon as I am able to figure out how to do that. I'm well aware of the reference but I was unable to add it at the time of the edit. Please, have some patience and avoid these lightning-quick reversions. Wikipedia editing is *arcane* to normal people, and it's not exactly intuitive to edit these entries for newbies.

Frankly, these kinds of reversions leave a bad taste in my mouth regarding Wikipedia as a platform, and these kinds of negative behaviours make me question whether I should participate any further in editing Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyclif (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wyclif, Comments on a talk page go with the bottom. I often see new editors unaware of this who place them at the top but I don't think I've ever seen someone place it in the middle. I moved it down here.
I did see the edit history.
I am very aware that Wikipedia editing can be challenging at the beginning. I'm puzzled that you would decide to add some material without knowing how to add a reference and think you could go off and figure that out and come back and do it but that's not the issue. I didn't revert your edit because it was unreferenced (although that would've been an acceptable response), I reverted it because it was a copyright violation. Did you read my edit summary?
I'm sorry this experience is leaving a bad taste in your mouth, I spend a lot of time tracking down copyright violations and removing them. That doesn't bother me, I understand that many people never learned in school about the concept of copyright and it's something we have to put up with. But it does leave a bad taste in my mouth when someone violates copyright policy and then complains.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Wyclif, Just in case you ask, I did not missed your edit summary asking for a discussion on the talk page before reverting, but while you can make that request, removal of copyright violations is not something that's discussed before the removal. If you think my removal was in error, you are welcome to post at my talk page, on the article talk page or at your talk page in bring it to my attention, but we removed first and then discuss. I do make mistakes on occasion and it's possible I missed that the material was licensed properly and if so, I'll be happy to revert but you need to point out why your edit is not a violation of copyright policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC):Just so you know, referencing used to be one of the more challenging tasks for new editors but it's now one of the easiest. If you are using the visual editor, just click on "cite" of the reference, and in the vast majority of cases, the editor will create the reference for you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I specifically reworked that section the second time around to avoid copyright, and you still reverted it! I also added a copyright-free photo that I carefully checked to ensure was copyright-free (and was marked as such!), and you reverted that too, along with the reference to the newspaper article I was quoting (with quotation marks). I fully understand the ramifications of copyright, you know. It's a bit rich to receive a lecture on copyright from some random Wikipedia editor...this is what I was talking about when I mentioned how discouraging it is for new editors here.--Wyclif (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

To talk page stalkers, I know my reaction isn't close to best practices. Brand-new editors often find this place confusing, and many make mistakes. However, my irritation has nothing to do with lack of Wikipedia knowledge. It doesn't bother me that:

  • a new editor doesn't know that comments go at the bottom of the page
  • a new editor doesn't understand how to construct a reference
  • a new editor is unaware that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously

I deal with all those issues every day and try to politely guide new editors so they can become valuable contributors. What does trouble me is when someone without a clue upbraids me for failing to read their edit summary (incorrectly, because I did read it), fails to read my edit summary, and presumes to know the rules even though they self admit they are a new editor. Is it a generational thing? I was brought up to ask questions when visiting a new place and making a mistake, rather than simply assuming that, with no knowledge of the environment, I know better than those who have been around for years. Okay--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake

Dear User, you are right about the Copying in Wikipedia: never heard of that between 2004 and today, after 10,000 edits… I am sorry for that… my more complete reply on my User page. Yours-Arorae (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Arorae, Editors with many more edits aren't aware of it, no big deal, just want to make sure we comply. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

This is to inform you that I have opened a dispute resolution concerning the Kamala Harris Talk page "Attendance" item. You have commented there. I believe that the "2019" section of the article should reflect the well-documented fact that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Kamala_Harris Jab73 (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Jab73, Despite having a fair bit of experience here, I haven't participated in the dispute resolution noticeboard as far as I recall. I noticed you identified contributors to the discussion created a section for a number of them but not me. I'm trying to figure out whether there's a reason for this or whether it's a simple omission. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

re: requested redaction

Hi, could you please elaborate as I'm not familiar with rules requiring me to redact things of this nature on discussion pages? Thanks. BeŻet (talk)

@BeŻet: Yes, happy to help.
The general guideline is here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
The most common application is in connection with articles about living people, but as the opening sentence says, scope applies to "any Wikipedia page", so it does apply to talk pages.


This section specifically talks about the need to remove "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"
I have mixed feelings about the reference to "incorrect material" as that is almost certain to be true about frankly just about everyone, but the assertion that the living person Andy Ngo has posted a hoax is unsourced, so ought to be removed. If you want to simply remove the reference to hoaxes, that might satisfy the guideline although it leaves a statement that's hardly worth making, so my preference is simply to remove the entire sentence.
I've added a source and specified attribution, which should be more than enough. BeŻet (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
BeŻet, I responded on your talk page. No it wasn't enough.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you. BeŻet (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
BeŻet, Did you read your source? Not only does it fail to even hint at hoaxes, it doesn't even assert that he's ever posted incorrect information. Virtually all journalists have posted incorrect information at some time, so it shouldn't be hard to find such a source, but the source you provided does not even make that assertion. Please remove it. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, the source clearly shows examples of incorrect and manipulated information that he has posted. Someone has already crossed out "hoaxes", so that should satisfy you now. Any further redaction would be based on your own, personal feeling about the source. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Military uniform

It is not copyright information and is taken from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo 838 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nemo 838, Please read WP:COPYWITHIN. I can't fix it now, but I'll try to do so in a couple hours.S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Nemo 838,  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemo 838 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

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

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

DS topic codes for gamergate.... and gender??

Hi, in your role as ARB clerk, could you please look at the list of topic codes for DS.... it seems there are three for gamergate, but these include gender issues... without knowing a thing about the underlying cases it seems like error to have multiple codes for any one topic, and it seems like another error for two topics (gamegate and gender) to share the same code. To extent you peek and clean up errors in your role as clerk, thanks for your service and I don't need to know about it. (If there is housekeeping that needs doing and you seek volunteers, you may ping me)

That said, I do have a specific question... I am curious if there is a ARB decision and ds applies for gender issues? I'm not involved in anything specific, I was just noting my talk page for subjects where I was "aware" DS applies, and I can envision commenting on gender issues at some point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, sorry I haven't been an arb clerk in years. Sorry for the delayed response I've been without power till 4 AM today S Philbrick(Talk) 10:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Huh... I thought I followed a link of current clerks. Maybe I screwed up and was at an old version of the whatever page. Anyway, sorry to bother you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, No problem. If you find that I am still on a list, please point it out. Won't surprise me. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm just guessing I was probably on page for some old case when you were still active. Have a great day, and I'll speak up if I come across a current error of that sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

PAICV Rule in Cape Verde

I'm not convinced PAICV Rule in Cape Verde is a G12 candidate of http://cape-verde-infos.com/history-2/ because that page itself appears to be a copy of Cape Verde#History. The cape-verde-infos.com website seems to have been built as a rip-off of the wiki article. Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, Thanks for noticing that. It's my experience that many editors, even experienced ones are not familiar with our guideline: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, our copy patrol tool doesn't alert us when material appears to be copied from within Wikipedia, so unless the editor makes note of that in the edit summary and provides attribution it may get mistakenly flagged as a G 12. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

HNMT

Thank you very much! You've made my day! I'm done with HNMT, please change back the visibility. By the way, can you recommend a tool that checks text against copyright violations? -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxim Masiutin, yes, see Earwig's Copyvio Detector. More info here:Wikipedia:Copyright_violations#Other_resources S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I have edited the page. Could you please check it at Histamine N-methyltransferase and possibly "patrol" it? -- Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Maxim Masiutin, I have over 11000 pages in my patrolled list, and I need to trim that list, so sorry, I can't add it. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Collin Morikawa‎

Hi, I noticed that you just 'revdel'ed Variations of golf. I tagged Collin Morikawa‎ for such action nearly 24 hours ago and wondered if you could please do the honours (it is now currently linked from the main page via ITN). Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wjemather,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't revert my creation of SDG 5 article

I see you have reverted the creation of a stand-alone SDG 5 article. Please don't do that. Please see existing discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_Development_Goals#Should_each_SDG_have_its_own_article? . We are actually creating separate articles for all the 17 SDGs as part of an upcoming edit-a-thon, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Climate_change/Online_edit-a-thon_SDGs_September_2020 . That list of indicators is not under copyright as they are part of a UN resolution. See also here. Apart from that we are anyway not yet sure if we will include the complete list of targets for each SDG. Probably not. But either way, it is not a reason for deleting the entire SDG 5 article which I am in the process of building up. Pinging also User:Sadads with whom I have discussed this as well. EMsmile (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Number sourcing

Thanks for all your good work adding references to number articles. They do attract cruft, but there is plenty of good verifiable-but-unverified material in there too. It's a big improvement to get it properly sourced. Certes (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Certes, Thanks. I confess I have mixed feelings on whether some of the stuff belongs, and I've removed some of the very egregious stuff, but I am trying to come up with references for some of the material. I'm actually glad to hear from you. I checked the edit history and a lot of editors were involved but may be it was a long time ago, and many have moved on. I was somewhat surprised to see so little discussion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Number articles attract a lot of IP editors who rarely enter discussions, especially now that they're more discoverable. (Can you believe that, until 2016, 1 was a year article?) Some of it is vandalism – I just got an edit filter accepted to stop changes like 42 is... → 69 is... – or trivia like Joe Q. Sportballer wears number 42 but there are good edits too. We had an inconclusive RfC in 2013 and several later discussion. I've taken initiatives such as moving sections to List of retired numbers but there isn't a firm guideline as to what goes in, let alone adherence to it. I'm a firm inclusionist but even I think some of this stuff needs to go. We don't need a list of things there are 27 of. Certes (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Certes, I wouldn't mind having a more in-depth discussion of inclusion criteria for the integer pages. My first problem is identifying where best to have it. There is obviously no sense in having it on the talk page of one of the integers. Presumably, it could be on the talk page of wiki project mathematics. the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is another option. It isn't perfect as that page talks about whether a particular number ought to have an article on not, which is not the same as identifying what material belongs in such an article, but unless someone has a better suggestion, that might be a logical place to attract the type of editors who would have interest in the subject. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: WT:WikiProject Numbers might be a good place to start. There are previous discussions in its archive, and in Talk:1/Archive 1. (When reading wikilinks, beware that numeric titles like 1 used to be year articles, as 151 etc. still are.) I would also notify the more active WP Mathematics as you suggest. Certes (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Certes, thanks, I was working up a post and specifically discussed the Deacon Vorbis removal, which I see as discussed on that page so I will place my discussion there. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Conduct disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_disorder

Revisions 972489424 to 973104262 (inclusive) need to be redacted because they used copyrighted material. The three edits you reverted -- 07:50 to 08:06, 15 August 2020 -- used a public domain source. One of the edits even says "provided a list of symptoms from a public domain source". I'm going to add the material from the public domain source back. But if you can redact Revisions 972489424 to 973104262 (inclusive), that would be great. nidhighe (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nidhighe, Thanks for identifying additional revisions that needed revision deletion.
The revisions I had earlier deleted were poppies from this site, which does not appear to be public domain. Perhaps that source copied it from a public domain source and mistakenly claim copyright, but I did a revision deletion because the text of an edit much material that claimed copyright. you noted that an edit summary asserted material came from my public domain site but please note that that edit is a subsequent edit. It is common practice to use rollback which not only undoes the edit containing the problematic text, but all subsequent edits. Let me know if you need further information. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed an edit was recently made hidden due to possible copyright violations. However, it seems the website is pulling from Wikipedia and not the other way around. Is it possible the content was hidden in error? It is still the same content as in the entire Psilocybin article. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, hope you are well. Could you please update on the newdrugapprovals.org situation if possible? Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sphilbrick/Archive_115&oldid=984267402"