User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 73

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 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Molecular biology portal

I'm very sorry - I've just seen your moves in "recent changes", and I realise I must have messed up my {{db-move}} request. The portal page, Portal:Molecular and cellular biology, should not have been overwritten. The content that is now there, a single news item from 2009, should be at Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Molecular and cellular biology news. The archive of even older news, that you have just moved to Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/News archive, should be a sub-page of the "News", Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Molecular and cellular biology news/News archive.

Sigh. I wish people wouldn't change the names of portals! -- John of Reading (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounded routine. What has to be done to fix it?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried restoring, but that didn't work.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you should have moved the "News" page out of the way before restoring - not that I've ever used or seen these tools, of course. The history at Portal:Molecular and cellular biology now combines the history of the portal page (the revisions with roughly 2400 bytes) and the history of the news subpage (1200 bytes). -- John of Reading (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading:I think I have now fixed two of the three:

The page "Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/News archive" (links | edit | delete) has been moved to "Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Molecular and cellular biology news/News archive"

The page "Portal:Molecular and cellular biology" (links | edit | delete) has been moved to "Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Molecular and cellular biology news"

But I now need to track down the main portal.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that didn't go well. If you have some thoughts, please share, if not, rather than dig myself in deeper, I'll ask for help.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear! Luckily this is a low-traffic portal... I still have a history tab open with from a couple of hours ago. The most recent revision of the top-level portal page has oldid=746570152 and size=2430 bytes. Does that help? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading:I tried something which may have worked.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That's better! But the Portal:Molecular and cellular biology/Molecular and cellular biology news page is wrong. It is currently a link back to the portal. All its revisions are mixed up in the revision history of the portal - the latest has oldid=746570260 and size 1180 bytes. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point, I expect that to get blown away but forgot while trying to get back the portal. I did save the contents off-line and restored them.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That should be good enough. Thank you for your help - let's move on and do something more productive! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed!--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi John of Reading, sorry, just a quick follow-up. Thanks for keeping an eye on portal moves I've done; I've noticed your follow-up category moves and direct transclusions post-move. On the portal move I did before your db-move request, other than aesthetic tweaks and direct transclusions, I don't believe there was truly anything incomplete or broken about it...?

About Special:Diff/746571264, it appears that Sphilbrick moved the subpage over to the rootpage and opted to delete the page in the way. After undeletion of all revisions (not select), revisions of both pages have been mixed with the rootpage. (this is technically a diff from two separate pages, not two moves I personally performed one after another) I don't know if a WP:HISTSPLIT is mandatory (it would involve some cherry-picking). If it needs it, perhaps ping Wikipedia:Requests for history merge? (I wish I could help out myself) And sorry if it was my own move prior to all this that caused the trouble. — Andy W. (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any part I may have played by mechanically executing the move without checking closely to see if it made sense. I think I've managed to restore the content but as you note there may be some mixing up of the history. I have no experience in doing merges or splits. If someone is willing to take this on, more power to them but I'll just offer my opinion that there is good reason to be careful about making sure that mainspace articles have a correct history for attribution reasons, but I am willing to be a little less rigorous when it comes to portal pages. Not to say that they are unimportant, but while I can imagine that someone might report on the contributors to a particular article, it seems less likely that someone is going to care deeply about the contributors to a portal.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: I try to be thorough, as in a few cases I've come across "edit" links that edit a redirect, rather than the intended subpage, or red links on "Selected article" pages that would lead to people creating a page with the old name. This time I found a few places where readers could see the old name (1, 2, 3). -- John of Reading (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: I'll consider this my neglect of Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving a portal, sorry. I updated here to reflect some of this. Really appreciate it, and thanks for the advice. :) (sorry Sphilbrik for spam) — Andy W. (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem Andy, and in fact, I was unaware that Portals required special handling when moving. Now I know.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi Sphilbrick! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re an active Twinkle new user welcomer. The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle Welcomer. Include the following information:

Username

Email where we can reach you

Your city or time zone

Best time to talk to you

Your primary use(s) of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks!Dchen (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of JGWM

Why did you delete it? It was under my username, and not in any way real!

02:46, 16 February 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Jawshewah/JGWM (G3: Blatant hoax)

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawshewah (talk • contribs) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jawshewah: Do you realize you've answered your own question? As you explained, it was not in any way real.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Well, it had no need to be deleted. I was not publishing it, this situation literally was "oh hey, some user has a page, I'm just gonna put it up for speedelete"!

The point of Wikipedia pages is for the improvement of the encyclopedia. In some rare cases, editors with any thousands of edits occasionally have a use a sub page which only tangentially relates to Wikipedia, but even that is frowned upon by some editors. The conclusion was that the page I deleted did not serve in any way shape or form to help improve Wikipedia.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
New Library Card Platform and Conference news
Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Userfy

Hey Sphilbrick, can you userfy Draft:Thoroughbred Daily News in a sandbox for me, so long as it isn't a copyvio situation? It's a legit publication, was just a COI newbie editor problem. I never got around to helping them out with an appropriate draft. If doable, Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw:

Done See User:Montanabw/Thoroughbred_Daily_News --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Draft:Khaki Jones

I am requesting restoration of Draft:Khaki Jones, which you deleted because I let the draft submission lapse [over 6 months]. Would it be possible to look over previous submitted versions and reasons for rejection to help with further submissions? Thank you in advance.Asdiprizio (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Asdiprizio:

Done--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of a borked TFD close

If possible, could I please get {{ARP}} undeleted? I would like to reverse my close based on new information and continue the discussion. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac:

Done --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wbb coaches/NCAA Division I independent schools (basketball)

Template:Wbb coaches/NCAA Division I independent schools (basketball) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

March through Leicester to save Glenfield Hospital's Children's heart unit October-2016.jpg

Hi Sphilbrick. I've uploaded Steve Score's photo ..and mentioned you!
Url=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:March_through_Leicester_to_save_Glenfield_Hospital%27s_Children%27s_heart_unit_October-2016.jpg
I've never had any problems uploading my own photos but have always had problems either explaining legal niceties to copyright owners or problems re a change of photograph name. Unfortunately my wife dragged me out shopping today hence the delay otherwise being able to mention your name would have helped. Thanks for your work on OTRS. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@JRPG: I've processed the permission - thanks for the upload, will have additional thoughts but they will have to wait until morning - no big deal, just wanted to write something about how editors can help with the OTRS backlog.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@JRPG:Thanks for responding.

As some background, OTRS is horribly backlogged, especially permissions with about 1600 open tickets, some not being touched for many weeks. That fact might surprise you, as I deliberately took the ticket involving you out of order, but there are many many people who have sent in a permission statement weeks ago without a response from a human.

I'm very troubled by this. While trying to work on the backlog I'm also trying to get a better understanding of why we have such a backlog. While an obvious possibility is that we need more agents, I think there's more to it than that.

While some tickets are inevitably complicated, one of my observations is that most tickets are far more complicated than they need to be. A well-crafted permission statement can be processed in about a minute. However, well-crafted permission statements are the exception rather than the rule. I get that non-editors who are being asked to provide a permission statement for the first time ever might not know exactly what to do and get it wrong. We need to work on our instructions to make the desired process work better. However, it is common that an editor of an article is looking for a photo for the article and reaching out to someone to provide one. I'd like to make sure that editors understand how to make the process work better. While this particular ticket is now resolved, think of this as me practicing on how best to write instructions so that editors can help reduce the backlog.

You made an important observation that I think is worth emphasizing. We have a process for submitting permission and images when one is the copyright holder, and a slightly different process when one is dealing with an image where you are not the copyright holder. That second process is necessarily different and can lead to some complications. It is not uncommon that someone will submit a permission statement and attach the image expecting me to do the upload. I sometimes do this but I hesitate because the steps are more complicated.

If we can get the copyright holder to do the upload, the process is almost always much faster.

We have a way to do this.

There is an Interative Release Generator (IRG) in a prominent blue link on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates

It gets used rarely. I don't know whether this is because it isn't prominent enough, or whether people do see this page and still don't use it.

(As an aside, while the process is smoother when the copyright holder uploads, the IRG can be used to upload someone else's image as well.)

One challenge is that some people write their own permission statement, saying things like "you can use my image in Wikipedia". This permission fails to key items and results in the start of a back-and-forth discussion. Using the IRG make sure that people use the correct language.

Many people include a link to the image but not a link to the image on Commons a link to the image in some other location. That helps us identify the image but the permission tag has to be added to the image, so ages now have to search for it. As often as not, the name on Commons is different than the name on the other site so that can be a challenging search.

I'm already tl;dr and haven't covered all the issues, so I'm struggling to find a succinct way to get the message out to editors on how to help ensure that the OTRS permission process is smoother.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'm tired too -Post US election shock! Yes, I have quite a lot of contract law experience & know that people particularly WP:BLP people regard copyright and other contractual arrangements as informal -unless things go wrong! Suggested procedure for uploader:-

Advise copyright holder that a prescribed formal legal declaration will be needed releasing copyright before the document can be uploaded -suitable wording will be supplied.
Select a photograph for uploading and agree with the copyright holder a descriptive title showing typically where, when and what is happening. Avoid photographs which may affect privacy -e.g. of a subject's children.
Get copyright holder to send uploader the correctly named photo -provide them with wording for CC4bySa and say this is recommended but offer links to the alternatives and say they can use that.
Upload giving copyright holder name, url + date & time of email to permissions.

It needs to be very easy for permissions to locate the file -a previous stumbling block,months later -which is why I was pleased to have your name.

Regards JRPG (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been promised more material, have checked out the IRG link and could/would have used it for Steve Score's photo. More difficult if the copyright holder, as here, is a hospital and I'm asking a favour but I think at least half my 3rd party photos could have been uploaded this way. I would still want to check the photos before they were uploaded & would need to be sure that the uploader was IT competent. JRPG (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I get that it is awkward, when asking a favor by asking for a photo to follow that up with a request that they uploaded themselves. That's why I offered to do it myself. Depending on the subject I might tell him that the process is easiest if they uploaded themselves but I'm willing to if they don't want to, or I might skip to the second step. However, my current challenge is how to figure out how to tell editors to provide this advice. For example if I read your response correctly you did not know about the IRG link before I mentioned it to you. Like to figure out how to make it more prominent. Maybe it needs to be in general editing guidelines.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Take it as read, I regard Wikipedia as the greatest educational idea of my lifetime. I want to make it easier for everyone & I had seen the blue IRG link. Agreed it needs more publicity -I was completely unaware of the way it operated & assumed it just gave another choice of copyright wording. The reason -I was convinced only confirmed editors could upload because of the problems of inexperienced editors not understanding copyright, privacy problems or not understanding what was or wasn't an educationally useful photo. An editor selection process is needed -I received 6 photos from Steve, two of which I rejected as they showed a baby's face & the other 3 were similar to the first & I only need one. I hope to be emailed more photos about different aspects next week and then after agreeing selection, I'll follow your suggested procedure with the copyright holder. I'll let you know what happens & will be in touch. How about a userbox? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A userbox is an intriguing thought. I'll mull on it (which sounds like overthinking, but a userbox implies a whole process, which is worth considering).--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wonder if there is an equivalent of "Do you know" for editors -or a "what's new" -highlighting that 3rd parties can upload their own copyright material. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

move to Commons tag at another Wiki

I found an image used on the Italian Wikipedia, and it has a MTC tag on it, I think it is awaiting human confirmation. Any way to push that so we can use it here?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know immediately, but I'll check with someone.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Can you give me a link? As I started to write my post, I am sure the next question will be "which image". --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL sorry. It's it:File:Luigi Pirotta.png, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: There's some advice here: User_talk:Fastily#Question_about_move_to_Commons--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Page deletion RNXT

Hello,

I am writing to you to request information regarding why my page on RNXT which was in my sandbox was deleted in Wikipedia. I am trying to create a page about RNXT and it keeps getting deleted. Please advice and let me know what I can do.

Thank you.

Parvathy Binoy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvathyrnxt (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing such as the following:

The company is known for being in sync with the dynamic needs of the IT sector globally and is primarily focused on providing industry focused IT services to meet the demands of clients worldwide.

is absolutely unacceptable, and makes it look like a vehicle for advertising. That said, I restored it so you can work on it.

If you are associated with the organization, you should not continue.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Done--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Sphilbrick.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For deleting all my Userspace pages, will you delete this as well? Pyrusca (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

^That was meant as a joke. Pyrusca (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pyrusca: Sometimes nuance gets lost in textual responses. It sounds like you are saying I deleted something I shouldn't have but that may be a misreading. Can you provide more info?--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No no, I meant to than you for deleting all the subpages in my userspace. I tend to create articles in my userspace and I move them to the mainspace. The deletions keep it not cluttered. Pyrusca (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, then thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Argus Media

Hi Sphilbrick, I see that you removed copyright violation content here a few days ago. I suspect similar text has now been added--though probably not a copyright issue, there are plentiful other concerns. Shall I revert? Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey 99. Copyvio everywhere. i reverted back to a clean version from 2013 since copyvio was introduced in this edit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, JJMC89. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Templates deleted under T3, but they have transclusions.

It appears that you deleted Template:Liveship Traders Trilogy, but it has transclusions, so it does not appear to qualify as WP:T3. The same goes for {{TawnyManTrilogyBooks}} and {{FarseerTrilogyBooks}}, the latter of which was deleted by RickinBaltimore.

~~Pinging Rob Sinden~~, who nominated these templates as T3. I am confused. How did these templates qualify under T3? – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Robsinden. Wrong user name above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

They were all redundant to {{Robin Hobb}}, so WP:T3 clearly met. I've removed the transclusions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

RobsindenThanks Rob --S Philbrick (Talk) 12:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. That was the last step that was missing, to get the red template links out of reader-facing articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NEW WOLVES LOGO Reduced resolution.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NEW WOLVES LOGO Reduced resolution.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone created an SVG versions on fine with the removal of the JPEG.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations ...

... on finding the source that much of The II Congress of World Azerbaijanis was copied from. All of the other articles created by the same editor were copyright infringements, so it seemed highly likely that this one was too, but search s I might, I couldn't find the source (except for one sentence, which was copied from a different source, and that one sentence didn't seem enough to justify deletion). You were either luckier than me or more skilful than me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thanks although luck is the more likely answer. Actually, I think I found that one doing CopyPatrol so credit goes to whomever worked on the search algorithm for that tool. Although it often brings up dead links, and I have to do a manual search, I think that one was found by the tool.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Denise_Young

Regarding the copyright infringement that you flagged. I wanted support understanding the infringement you spoke to. I attempted to provide appropriate attribution and a link to the article that was quoted. Can you please advise or provide a suggested solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaamiB (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

SaamiB, If you go to:

this site

Do you think I missed something? S Philbrick (Talk) 21:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Marie Laveau

Hi Sphilbrick, I suspect there's been a renewal of copyright violations here since you last rev/deleted. Please have a look at the new registered account's history at several articles. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

About article

Well i did get into some problems and can't solve them

Bdetfehigj (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj, need more information S Philbrick (Talk) 15:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Google book ref

Hello - I just put the Google Books URL https://books.google.com/books?id=EHNOHAjXdQcC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&q=octal&hl=en#v=snippet&q=octal&f=false into the visual editor's automatic citation creator and came up with that citation. Does that explain it? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, Yes it does explain it. Thanks very much.

The visual editor does say you can enter:

URL, DOI, ISBN, PMC/PMID, QID, title, or citation

But I've tended to use:

DOI, ISBN or PMC/PMID

When I have those values, and I used Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books when I had a Google books URL.

I hadn't realized until just now that dropping the Google books URL into that box works.

More importantly, I learned recently that the citation tool does not work for the new Google books site, but I just tested and dropping that link into visual editor box seems to work so that makes me very happy as I use this a lot. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)