![]() | 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. |
hi, i contacted the authors of http://aypt.at/en/basic_info/tournament_course and they agreed to add a CC license to the that work so it can be used for wikipedia. They're happy to use a different license or do whatever is necessary to allow the use of the text for wikipedia. Is it ok to revert the article to the longer version, given that the copyright issue is resolved? It that seems more appropriate for an international competition with 30+ years of history, many thousand participants (see http://archive.iypt.org/people/) - just like IPhO, which has a similarly comprehensive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.42.48 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:David Ogden Stiers appears to have an RfC discussion about that article, and I fear some of the comments bear little relation to the normal stated use of any RfC. Collect (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted a version of Gircha as being copyvio of "igirchabsa.webs.com". In fact, most of the history of this article is full of that. Removing all those edits with copyvio might be possible but perhaps deleting and recreating is a quicker option (if allowed). The Banner talk 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your interest to the MCC page. Just for curiosity, why did you remove my new part? Was there a copyright issue? Thanks --Larry.europe (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Sphilbrick, hope all is good! I have a question: would you be willing to check on five photos that are under one ticket that I have sent to OTRS? Ticket number is #2018032210000731. I'm pretty sure you'll have to ask them for the license... I mentioned it when I sought permission and listed 4.0, but they didn't say anything other giving me permission and who to credit. Thanks, Corky 02:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Just checking to see if the Ice Cream (band) page you previously deleted was referencing the same band I am trying to create a page for. I am creating a page for the Ice Cream that appears in this article https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/welcome-to-the-us-girls-universe-listening-guide/ Janemiller10 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the date it gave me: 10:27, 16 July 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Ice Cream (band) (G 13 (TW)) Thanks for the reply! Janemiller10 (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No this is for a different Ice Cream! Thank you for checking Janemiller10 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick, you will need to use your WP:REVDEL again on the page. Cheers, talk to !dave 14:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
A couple of weeks ago you revdel-ed addition of copyright material at Holland Lop. That same material (I assume) got re-added within hours by the same editor. I have reverted but you may want to revdel again. Should I report this to ANI or some other noticeboard? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You have deleted a large part of my biography "Anthony J. Camp" as the details are practically the same as those on my website, the copyright of which is owned by me, and I have no objection to them being included on Wikipedia. Can they be restored without difficulty. AnthonyCamp (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC).
Hello Sphilbrick, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of St. John the Evangelist (Rochester, Minnesota), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The copyvio text has now been removed. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, because I have User:AnthonyCamp's talkpage on my watchlist, I eventually noticed that you removed and revdelled the info he added to the wiki article about himself, Anthony J. Camp. Since the material was observably from his own website, and he wrote it himself, and he is adding his own writing to Wikipedia, that seems to be an express copyright permission. (Note that I'm not saying that he should copy his own bio from his own website and post it into the wiki article; I'm just saying that it seems de facto not a copyright violation.) I'd like to also express here my appreciation for Mr. Camp, who has helped me enormously on several Wikipedia articles and research, with both on-wiki and off-wiki support. Meanwhile, on the COI and autobiography front, I don't think he realized the stricture against directly editing articles about oneself, as his wiki editing is fairly sporadic. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
Hi, Sphilbrick! How have you been? Well and happy, I hope. I have no complaints.
I have what I hope is a very minor problem with the page above: User:Dbachmann tagged it a little while ago for its "inappropriate" tone. I made some changes and asked him (or her) to look them over, but there's been no reply. (Is Dbachmann a bot? Can bots detect inappropriate tones?) Would you have a minute or two to look at my edits and let me know if I've understood the problem correctly? If I have, I think I've earned the removal of the tag.
Many thanks! Beebuk 09:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed a red link in the archive box at Template talk:Convert. Investigating shows Template talk:Convert/Archive October 2012 was deleted as G6 in December 2016. Please check if that was accidental and restore if so. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sphilbrick, this is regarding your edit no: 836373578 from yesterday where you undid a previous edit of mine on the page in question. The reason you quoted was that there was a copyright issue with a certain website (omics online), which I take to mean the text of my edits had significant overlap with the text in that website. If that is what you meant, I believe you are mistaken: if you look at the wiki page before and after my edit, the amount of overlap with that website is the same; the changes which I made have not come from that website. In fact, the present version of the wiki page (which has only relatively minor differences from where you left it after undoing my edit) has the same sort of overlap with that website. In fact, that website itself seems to have taken its text content either from Wikipedia itself or from the website of the Institute. So I don't understand what you mean by a copyright issue, nor your justification for undoing my edit on those grounds. Please re-look this matter and let me know if you disagree. Swamidivyatma (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate your quick response and correction! Swamidivyatma (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018
Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you had reverted my edits in the article History of Finland based on a web source (Mongabay.com) you found that contains some of the same text. However, if you look at the US Government Country Studies (specifically the one about Finland) available at Library of Congress, you will notice that the text at Mongabay.com actually comes from the Country Studies (they also acknowledge it themselves at the page footer). As works of the federal government, the Country Studies are public domain, which is attributed in the reference. Accordingly, I kindly ask to return the content to the page. --Tungsten (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
How is it "odd"? Just curious.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
deadlink provided as support for copyvio, the added content you are disputing is actually reuse of existing Wikipedia content. Possible the source you believe holds copyright originally used content from Wikipedia's synth-pop article. Acousmana (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Acousmana:I'm not sure why you call this:
a dead link; it open for me. (I do note that it took about three seconds to load. Is it possible you have a slower connection and have to wait a little while?)
I do agree that the material on that page matches what is in the Wikipedia page Synth-pop. It appears that they re-used the material from Wikipedia article which is acceptable, but they failed to properly attribute it, which is not (or if they did, I missed it.)
You are permitted to reuse material from one Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article under certain conditions. However, if that is done it must be properly attributed.
The following page has general information about copying within Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I'll repeat here the relevant section about what must be included in the edit summary in such a case:
At minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page – that is, the page into which the material is copied – stating that content was copied, together with a link to the source (copied-from) page, e.g., copied content from page name; see that page's history for attribution.
I realize you are relatively new and did not know about our requirements for reuse of material. However there are several of us that work on tracking down potential copyright violations. There are several hundred potential items identified every single week.
This is one tool used to look for such problems. As you can see, there have been tens of thousands of cases reviewed and handled: Leaderboard.
I'll speak only for myself, but I'm confident that the other editors working in this area would concur — seeing an edit summary identifying that the material was copied is extremely useful, and helps avoid the false positives arising from the close matching of material to mirror sites especially those that failed to properly attribute the source. Without including an edit summary, you are essentially saying that the words included in the edit are your own words (unless set of by quote marks or a quote box), which was not the case.
In many cases, edits are reversible, but I'm going to request that you redo the edit rather than having me reverse it. The inclusion of that material might be appropriate in that article — it seems likely, but I don't know the subject matter. If I reverse the edit then it becomes my responsibility. If you redo it, it's your responsibility. Second, reversing the edit would not create the proper edit summary to help flag the material so that it doesn't get reverted again by some other editor monitoring copyright issues.
I hope you will appreciate our interest in making sure that Wikipedia is free of copyright violations. I'm happy to see that you are interested in improving our articles and I hope this incident won't turn you off. Good luck.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Acousmana (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
First, I apologize that it has taken me a month to notice your reverting of most of my content updates on my page. I also want to apologize for any perceived copyright infringement. I serve as the Town Clerk for the Town of Dundee, FL and was tasked with updating the Wikipedia page to better compare with our surrounding communities. I am the legally recognized holder of the Town Seal, Town Logo, and Town Copyright, including all content I wrote for the Town website which you referenced in your reverting of the different content sections.
However, only the history part of the updates were taken from my content from the Town website. The other material updates or additions were just simple facts about the Town and were even cited in several places when taken from non-town owned sources. If possible, what do I need to do to get my edits back in to the Wiki page? If it is absolutely necessary, I can cite myself for the history section of the website. Thank you very much for your time.
It might seem obvious that if an individual is an author of some words, that individual ought to be able to use those words in a Wikipedia article without any problems. However, there are three reasons it isn't as simple as it sounds.
The first issue is the identification of the individual. It might be the case that some individual has written some words, that we have a user with the same name. Iin most cases we will allow any user to choose just about any name without requiring proof that the name is the real name. We don't even require real names. In the case of an individual using a real name, we generally don't take any steps to ensure that it is their real name except in the case where the individual wants to use real name which is famous (roughly speaking, has an entry in Wikipedia in that name), in which case we do need to take some steps to ensure that name used matches the real name of the user.
A second issue, and this is typically the most important issue, is that the original author of the words might be the copyright holder at the time they were written, but it is quite common for the copyright license to be transferred to another individual or organization. If the words are written on commission, this may happen automatically and simultaneously. Whenever someone writes something that ends up being the official statement of an organization, such as the "about us" section or something similar, it is almost always the case the organization has arranged for the transfer of copyright from the original author to the organization itself. It is often the case that someone writes something for publication either in a general magazine or academic journal. In many of those cases the acceptance of the work includes the transfer of the copyright. While this does not happen in 100% of cases, it is common enough that we have to operate as if it might have happened, and ask for confirmation from the website holder or the journal or the magazine or wherever the words appear that the copyright is retained by the original author. It can happen but it's rare. In either case, to reuse the words in a Wikipedia article requires the explicit licensing of the material from the copyright holder and this is very often not going to happen, because the required license agreement is rather broad.
The third issue is not quite a copyright problem. Words written in Wikipedia have to conform to a neutral point of view, and it is quite common that words written for other venues have a different tone. It may not be that they are wrong or inaccurate, but the text is typically supportive of an organization or an idea, and may not be as balanced and neutral as is appropriate for Wikipedia. In the case that someone wrote the words for a website or in connection with some idea, the author probably needs to review our conflict of interest guideline, which sets out some requirements for editing in the situation. In many cases it may prohibit such editing, but at a minimum, it will require some declaration of the existence of a conflict of interest and possibly the existence of a paid editing situation.
I tried to write this generically. We can now further discuss to what extent any of these issues apply to you specifically.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)