User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 127
 | This is an archive of past discussions with 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 120 | ← | Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 |
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
Technical news
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Arbitration
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Mind Over Four edit deleted
Why were my edits removed? I updated the information about a band that I co-founded. I wanted a hyperlink for Micheal Fordays, and to correct the spelling,(it is not MichAEl, rather MichEAl) and to correct and update the fact that my solo work is not past tense but in a current mode. (…released solo work, rather releases solo work.) the info currently is incorrect.
Also I added the references to the Jeff Wagner book and Podcast because these are important references for fans of Mind Over Four. These were cut and paste and I understand if that violates policy, but that doesn’t explain why the other corrections, mentioned above, were deleted.
None of my updates were fraudulent or negative in anyway. Why would they be removed? Do I not have a say about how my past projects or creative endeavors are portrayed?
Do I not have any recourse to make corrections on discrepancies I have described that feature my name and a project I helped to define? No place for my name and projects to be highlighted or enhanced to hyperlink, or even spelled correctly? Is this page, using my name and the name of the band I co-founded a format to promote Humble Gods, Mindfunk, Corporate Avenger and, Pat Dubar? Does the original author of this Wikipedia page the person that determines these issues?
How can these issues be approached and resolved?
Thank you, Michealfordays@ @gmail.com Micheal Fordays (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion, don't delete drafts
There is an ongoing discussion how to split One man, one vote and One person, one vote, see here: Talk:One man, one vote#Splitting proposal between One man, one vote and One person, one vote. Please don't delete Draft:One person, one vote or Draft:One man, one vote since I use it in that discussion. HudecEmil (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that was done properly, but I'll let it go. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in July 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
|
Technical news
user_global_editcountis a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
Miscellaneous
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Article of John Akec
I am yet a new Wikimedia editor, this article i wrote it cause the personnel in context is a very famous and yet notable person in south sudan politics and education, so i stabd to be corrected. Thanks 41.210.154.225 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that your content is mostly a copy of this site. I didn't see any indication that the source page was properly licensed. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
JKB
Recent revisions were made which were in error Website data was created using information from Wikipedia page there Wiki page proceeds website data Recent edits made by nought12 were addition history to proceeding history to organisation Please review a reverse changes Nought12 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- For future use, it's polite to provide a link to the article you're discussing.
- I think I figured out that you were asking about JK Brackens GAA Club, but I look at dozens of pages every day and a search for JKB Came up empty.
- If that is the article can you be little clearer on what the issue is?
- I think you are trying to say that you are adding history of the organization to the article. I assume that was the case but the problem is the material you added appeared to be copied from https://www.jkbrackensgaa.com/history.
- Am I mistaken? S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Apologies for lack of sufficient information in previous post You are correct in your observation that the material on the website is the same, however the website has actually copied its information from the Wikipedia article as the proceeded the website. I am compiling an historic summary and the web page is using this info after as they are free to do so Nought12 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- They are not free to copy from Wikipedia, fail to provide attribution and then claim for copyright over the content, that's on them not on you.
- I reverted my removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you S. Philbrick Nought12 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Boulder Creek, CA article
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder_Creek,_California#/editor/1
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for how you approached the flagging incident with this article. You were objective, neutral, and gracious. I have taken the information you provided and am trying to apply it with my new edits. I hope they are sufficient! Thanks again. Jakto (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Removals due to copyright are understandably seen as disruptive to what are are usually good faith attempts to improve an article, and responses are not always cordial, so we appreciate that you understood what we are trying to accomplish. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 51
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022
- New library partners
- SAGE Journals
- Elsevier ScienceDirect
- University of Chicago Press
- Information Processing Society of Japan
- Feedback requested on this newsletter
- 1Lib1Ref May 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Sphilbrick!
Great to see you're still in the game! It's been a while since we've corresponded; I hope you've been happy and well. I've been inactive as a contributor to Wiki for some time now--but an issue has just arisen that brings me back. Pierrot has been edited to curtail its "excessive" length, and I'm very dismayed at the results. I wonder if I could presume to trespass on your time and ask you to compare just one section--"Eighteenth Century: France"--of the newly-edited version with my original and give me your thoughts: does the new section do justice to the information provided in the old? Is the sloppiness in footnoting a minor issue of correction? (See the footnote following the appearance of the song-title "Au Clair de la Lune," for example.) I don't feel that I have any proprietary ownership of the page: I just think the information that should be conveyed has been mangled.
My own take is the following: I don't think the article is too long to begin with. Anyone who has read the article carefully will realize that the two sections that contribute the most to its length are the "notable works" sections, and they aren't meant to be "read" in the usual sense of the word (as one would "read" a novel, for instance). They're intended as research tools for the curious and scholarly. (How many rock singers have masqueraded as Pierrot? Well, turn to the section on "[Rock] Group names and costumes." Is there an Estonian piece of literature that features Pierrot? Yes, there is: Johannes Semper's poem "Pierrot." Etc.). But if this is an ineffectual rejoinder to the objection to the page's length, there seems to me another solution: take out those "notable works" sections and put them on their own separate Wiki pages and direct the reader's attention to them with notes where they first appeared.
My real question is: How should I proceed? I thought of summarizing my objections to the changes and posting these on the Pierrot "talk" page and also on the talk page of Melchior2006. (I'm especially annoyed by the charge that I copied "verbatim" info from another website which I then included in my intro to the page--when the situation was, in fact, the other way around: many other websites have included swatches of my prose from Pierrot, which is perfectly legitimate, since, as you know, all Wiki material is in the common domain. This new editor didn't check the dates of production of my Pierrot and of the other webpage I "copied" from.) I also thought of trying to make all corrections of the "new" page on my own. But I'm old now, and tired. I don't relish the idea of cleaning up other people's messes. I know that either of the options I outline above will mean that the new editor's several days' work will have been wasted. But I feel that several YEARS of my work is being flushed down the toilet by the well-meaning but ultimately shoddy work of someone else.
If you don't have the time (or stomach) for this, please don't hesitate to tell me; I'll certainly understand. But maybe you can direct me to someone more suited to adjudicate, if that's the case? At any rate, I'm cheered to see you're still alive and kicking (like me, at 77) and still a master player at Wikipedia. I salute you on the rocky road of life!
Beebuk 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for reaching out to me. I will help, but I trust you appreciate that responding carefully will take a little time. I have the double problem of being under the weather, and helping to manage a rollout of a website for an organization, so my preference is to wait until later next week (the rollout is planned for the weekend, with subsequent follow-up meetings early in the week. I'll add a note to my calendar to look at this end of next week, but don't hesitate to ping me if this falls through the cracks. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for replying--and a truckload of thanks for offering to help. I should add that I just discovered that Melchior2006 has also re-edited my Jean-Gaspard Deburau page in response to a flag on the page decrying my non-encyclopediacal style. He--admirably, I think--neutralized that style, but also made many (to me) unwelcome cuts in the content. (He apparently regards quotations from sources to be "copying," and has simply removed almost all quotations from the text, leaving many sections eviscerated. [See, for example, the subsection "The people's Pierrot" under the heading "Myths about Deburau"; also look at the {unchanged} footnotes--all this in comparison to my original text. And note that the subsection entitled "The noble Pierrot" has been eliminated entirely, I suppose because there's too much "copying" there.] Is there a Wiki policy discouraging or prohibiting using quotations for evidence and illustration?) But, of course, I'll wait until you're free of entanglements (and in better health) before hashing all this out. It's made me think seriously of stepping aside from Wikipedia, quite honestly. As I said above, I'm old and tired. Jolts like these leave me queasy and trembling for days. But I hate to think there's this kind of junk floating around in the cyberverse. Many thanks again. Beebuk 18:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
- An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Technical news
- The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
- Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
- The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
- Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
- Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Question for you
Hey, Sphillbrick! It's been a while since we've crossed paths. Hope all is well on your end! I've been advised of an issue concerning Bremerton98310 who has been creating unsourced articles about men & women's basketball, collegiate basketball, football, etc. Some have been draftified, some are simply tagged with sources needed, others are at AfC. You can see by his UTP that he is not interested in responding to any of the concerns that have been raised. Got any suggestions for prevention and clean-up? Atsme 💬 📧 05:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Back to you
Is this what you meant by a "ping"? Beebuk 09:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Sorry I've been barely involved RL is very busy. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Much understood. I'm sorry to be such a pest. Please mop up all work previous to my entries and get back to me only at your leisure (if you have any). I have all eternity ahead of me (as William Blake would have said). Beebuk 02:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Kapyong
Hello Sphilbrick, you quite rightly removed some of my shorter edits to this article which I had copied from a source, in the scope of my editing that rule seemed to have slipped my mind there. I also should check with you about the quality of the source, in this case the Canadian Encyclopedia. The Canadian Encyclopedia is regularly used as a Wikipedia source for many articles related to Canadian subjects, so before I rework those edits I thought that I should see if that source is acceptable. As I say, it seems to be regularly used as a source in Wikipedia articles. Tennisedu (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have no reason to think that the Canadian encyclopedia is not a reliable source alloy don't have specific familiarity with it. As with any reliable source, it should support the material added but that material should be in your own words with the occasional exception of short quoted passages. Thanks for understanding. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking up on that, it is understood. I will note some other issues here before I commence editing this article.Tennisedu (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- If there is a diversity of opinions in the sources as to the facts of the battle, then we should be mentioning that diversity and not deciding for ourselves which facts should be excluded. That would constitute original work and is outside the scope of editing for our concerns. Personal judgment constitutes original work. Another concern here is speculative material. This article, like many military articles, contains speculative statements and "what if" musings. Such material is not relevant to the article, which should be grounded on actual events and developments. The article should not be sidetracked on speculations about what might have occurred if something had happened. That is well beyond the scope of the editing boundaries.Tennisedu (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking up on that, it is understood. I will note some other issues here before I commence editing this article.Tennisedu (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Close Recent edit reversion
I'm confused, where all my edits copyrighted or just one? It appears you also reverted edits that I made based on the sources that where there long time ago. Btw I tried my best to not copy paste the articles I used as a source and I did many changes. S.G ReDark (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for any confusion.
- It is standard practice, although sometimes surprising to new editors, that when a copyright concern is found in an edit we do what is called a rollback, which undoes all consecutive edits by the same individual. It is not always easy to sort out exactly what needs to be excised, and simply excising the copyrighted material might leave the text no longer making sense, so it is cleaner to do a rollback. You are welcome to redo an edit which does not impinge on copyright issues or also to start a discussion to determine whether what I thought was a copyright issue is in fact not one. If my presumption of a copyright issue is in error, I can easily undo the reversion. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
So, how I add everything besides the copyrighted material, I spent hours finding those articles and writing it. Btw in the source that you said is copyrighted, there's another link (linked there) that I mostly used. S.G ReDark (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I added the version before without the copyright article. S.G ReDark (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you've managed to restore the material that's not problematic. Let me know if this something else that needs to be addressed. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Virginia Water
Can I ask why all edits were reverted? The edits are all updates from the website I manage 2A02:C7F:60A0:2200:FDE6:8338:24F8:B7F1 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can think of several potential problems, but I'm going to start by talking generically. This only one contribution associated with your IP address and it's this one, so I'm not sure which article you were editing. Yes, I can guess it has something to do with Virginia water, but if you can be more specific I can respond more specifically.
- One issue is that we have no way of connecting your IP address to the person who controls some website.
- My reversion was because your edit included some text that map some copyrighted site. Even if you happen to be the owner of the copyright, it might surprise you to learn that you cannot simply add that material to the Wikipedia article. If the material is a good addition to the Wikipedia article, there is a way you can provide a release so that it can be used, but it cannot simply be used without formal licensing.
- Another potential issue is whether the website qualifies as a reliable source. We want actual additions to Wikipedia articles supported by reliable sources, and we have some rules covering more qualifies as a reliable source. I can't speak to whether the source qualifies is reliable without knowing the source. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in September 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Burns, Texas
Hello. I recently made a new article on Burns, Texas. How does it look? Colman2000 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, my wiki activity currently is limited to CopyPatrol activities S Philbrick(Talk) 16:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
- An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
- The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
- The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.
Arbitration
- An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
- The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
- The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
- Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Request of intervention
Hi, I request your intervention in article Istrian Democratic Assembly because ideological oriened user persists on invented word "anti-fascism" but no word "anti-fascism" in relaed source: this to falsify sources is vandalism! In real situation, Istrian people is anti-communist after 50 years of communist dictators Josip Broz and Milosevic. You have good day Forza bruta (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, not going to be able to help. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)