User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 133

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Copyright issue on Black Canary

Hi, I came across your message on User talk:NyssaFloors, and I noticed that the user was performing a valid merge (though they should've included attribution) from a article deleted via AfD. The blog you cited as the copied site is a backwards copy. Our version of the article had the text before the blog did, and at the bottom of the blog it says "Source of article: Wikipedia". See [1]. Please reverse the revdel. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's critical to identify when working on a merge. I trust it's obvious that such an edit is highly likely to trigger our Copypatrol tool, and seeing the edit summary explanation is the best way to identify it as a false positive. I think of merging as a fairly sophisticated edit so I'm surprised to see it from a brand-new editor but I suppose it's possible. If they would like to contact me, we can talk about next steps. S Philbrick (Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, now that the copyright problem has been cleared up (correct me if I'm wrong), is the remaining problem an improperly performed merge? Is the revdel still needed? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't had a chance to look into it S Philbrick (Talk) 13:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted my reversion. Thanks for letting me know. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hello I am writing with a question of importance to an issue of academic dishonesty; I am hoping for your quick help. On October 30th you removed some information from this page for copyright m: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Marmon_Silko. I do not see the passages that were removed from wikipedia on the shmoop.com site you reference. Can you provide any information on what led you to think these passages were on shmoop.com and when they were there (as they are not currently). Thank you! 76.16.237.103 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happening. The report:

https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/20220511?lang=en_us&o=103317409

Clearly identifies the sentences I removed. I typically do not simply accept the report but check myself confirm that the material is in the source as identified. However I don't see it now, so I reverted.

It is still problematic to include unsourced material, but I am narrowly working on copyright issues, and I don't see it now so I've undone my reversion S Philbrick (Talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

thank you so much for your reply! I should be clear we do not believe the passages that were uploaded are valid from the book Ceremony and as such it is appropriate for you to remove them from this site. What we are trying to understand is whether those passages ever existed shmoop.com but may have been deleted. It seems your copyright tool identified that they had existed there at some point which would be helpful for us to know. Is it possible that your copyright tool was matching to a previous date on shmoop.com and the site has been edited since with the passages removed? Thank you for your time! 76.16.237.103 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Most of the time, I make sure the passages identified in the iThenticate tool can be found in the source. I use the term "most" because I can think of a couple of exceptions and when I see a couple I literally mean a couple like maybe two times in the last few hundred, and this wasn't one of them, so while I don't affirmatively recall seeing the text, that is my usual practice.

Your supposition is plausible. I did briefly try to search for the relevant passages to see if I can find them elsewhere and failed. I think they could be removed for reasons other than copyright but that's not a step I'm ready to take so if someone else wants to, go for it. S Philbrick (Talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright issue: Nikolay Zefirov

Hello!

I'm writing with a question with Draft:Nikolay Zefirov page.

My fault, the page may have contained some of the sentences from the Arxivoc article. But it was a rough Draft, so I didn't have enough time to fix it. I just included a snippet of text so I don't forget to mention it in future parts. And now I don't have the original text (it took me a whole day of work on a school project, I ended up losing about 2k/4k characters) to fix it :(

Also, I have no ability to undo your everting to the latest version :((

can you undo your revertion, please? I will fixed it asap!

thanks a lot!

Best wishes,

Xenia ~~~~ Barashkovaxe (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry.

I am aware, because I seen it happen often, that new editors are under the impression that it's okay to incorporate copyrighted text into a draft as long as they plan to clean it up at some time. That is absolutely not permitted. While it is never a good idea to start with copyrighted text, if you must, you must do it off-line. Sorry but I'm unable to restore copyrighted text for you. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can find the text here, but it was 245 words which I think qualifies is more than "a snippet of text" S Philbrick (Talk) 18:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the reference text, I already have it. Unfortunatelly, I have no copy of my own text.

That about words - the half of the text is list of awards and honors. I cannot force them to be renamed..

As well, it's not a good practice to delete the whole text immediately without any preliminary notifications.

Xenia Barashkovaxe (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's standard practice, has been for literally decades.

I continue to be surprised at how many people compose large edits in the edit window. I occasionally will compose and edit in the edit window but almost never if it's longer than a sentence. That's what external editors are for. Then if there's a hiccup, which is not uncommon, the text is not lost. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ossett RUFC copyvio issues

Hey, I've reverted the re-addition of copyvio problems on Draft:Ossett RUFC, flagging for you because you removed it previously. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And the ensuing explanation and conversation, for your attention, at User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus § Draft:Ossett RUFC - Rejection. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright issue: Meanings of minor planet names: 34001–35000

Please review the decision to revert my recent edit to the page. The primary source of text is not your cited link in https://www.sait.it/.

The primary source is a WGSBN Bulletin issued by IAU, the link is [2], which is cited as reference at the rightmost column of the table. Contents by IAU are under CC BY 4.0 DEED according to [3], which can be shared with attribution.

Myomyomyomyon (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Rescue citations at Antonela Roccuzzo

Hi, thanks for clearing up the copyright vio at Antonela Roccuzzo. However, the revdel removed a large number of references that were used in the article between when the copyvio was added and the current revision. Can you restore just the list of references to the article's talk page so that they can be reincorporated and the article can be rewritten? Suriname0 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, maybe this request should go to User:SamX; please let me know. Suriname0 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable request, but I can't restore the references myself because I'm not an admin and am therefore unable to view the deleted revisions. Asking Sphilbrick is the right way to go about this. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Samx is right.

I temporarily restore the visibility of the intervening edits. I'm never happy about hiding so many edits but haven't found a suitable workaround yet. If you could give me a ping when you've done whatever you need to do, I can reinstate the revision deletion. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Sphilbrick. Done! It was fewer refs than I remembered, but I exported them to the talk page and added a Sources Exist template. Suriname0 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright at Draft:Quintus Prolog

Please consider reverting your nomination of Draft:Quintus Prolog for speedy deletion; as mentioned at the talk page, not only is the source freely licensed, the copying was indicated by an attribution template at the bottom of the article text ever since the first revision. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Done S Philbrick (Talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick note on process — I hope you can appreciate that our copyright detection tool looks for similarities between text in an edit and text existing elsewhere. While it would be nice if the algorithms had the ability to identify the copyright status of the matching text, that doesn't appear to be possible, so checking for false positives must be done manually by the individual reviewing the report.

Speaking only for myself, one of the things I do is examine the reported text to see if it appears to be licensed. In this case the source identified is this location, which doesn't appear to have any indication that it is acceptably licensed. I'm not arguing the text isn't acceptably license it seems likely that someone made the decision to provide an acceptable license at some later point in time and understandably didn't take steps to modify any existing copies existing anywhere else.

I do appreciate that you left a note at the bottom of the page and I'm sorry I didn't see it but I don't think it qualifies as attribution. In addition to checking the source, I typically look at the Wikipedia article content, not with a fine tooth comb but close enough to confirm overlap, and also to look for a reference section which might indicate a license.

There wasn't one at the time I made my nomination, and while the current version does have a reference section, it doesn't have any references identifying the acceptable licensing of the material. For an example of what I'm talking about please look at 19th-century_newspapers_that_supported_the_Prohibition_Party. When I look at the reference section I don't look closely at all contents but I look for the symbol as shown here (a copyright symbol with a slash through it) which identifies that Some of the material in the article came from elsewhere but that use is permitted. This type of attribution occurs in many hundreds of articles and provides a heads up to a reviewer that this is a false positive. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that the example I gave includes a template designed for public domain text which isn't the case in your example. {{Dual}} is probably a better template to use. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and I very much appreciate you taking the time for such a detailed response! Alas, {{dual}} is precisely the template I used to generate the text at the footer of the page, so unfortunately it doesn't seem to get any more visible than that. While on this page I only used the source initially and then had to rephrase it to make it encyclopaedic anyway, in other cases this survey article actually contains good, encyclopaedic text that should stay into the article main space version. So it is just a bit silly that it keeps getting overlooked. Felix QW (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite ironic that you used that template to generate the text. I am not a lawyer so I'm not able to tell you whether placing that text in an article which is not in the reference section qualifies as providing attribution. My guess is that you are on solid legal ground, but I am trying to tell you why it gets overlooked. I do occasionally talk to other editors who work in the copyright area but I've never sat down and walked through all aspects of the process. I'm telling you that I am not going to search through the text of an article with a fine tooth comb to search for something that might support the use. I do check references, and I won't be surprised if other editors also check references, but you suggest this is a common problem and I'm suggesting that it will continue to be a problem if it is your practice to drop the text somewhere in the article but not as part of a reference. Please keep in mind that there is only a dozen or so editors trying to deal with hundreds of notifications every week — it's like drinking from a fire hose and we don't have the bandwidth to check things as carefully as you might like. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Read more closely, the note at the bottom of the page makes reference to both the creative common's license and GFDL. That's why I suggested the "dual" template.

Looking at the page you identified here, I'm not seeing reference to GFDL. If I missed it and it's there then "dual" as a template makes sense, if not consider {{CCBYSASource}} S Philbrick (Talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, CC-BY is an attribution license that allows reuse under any more restrictive license, including GFDL. Only if it is under a CC-BY-SA license, itself a share-alike license, then it is restricted to further distribution under the same or a compatible license. Felix QW (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware that CC – BY is broader (painfully aware as jumped up and bit me once years ago), In your assertion that CC-BY might imply GFDL may well be true but doesn't the site you linked specifically say:

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited.

S Philbrick (Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Lamborghini Huracán revdel

Sorry, I think I missed up the revision range when flagging that one, it's actually the edits from 212.142.113.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) rather than User:Eghtegr - they're presumably the same person, though. 212.142.113.129 pasted in the actual text from other websites, User:Eghtegr only pasted in images. Belbury (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I just now picked up the range starting with the edits by 212.142.113.129. It does reuire flagging all interveining edits so I think we are fine now. S Philbrick (Talk) 00:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)