User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 84

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 80

←

Archive 82

→

SOBI2 Draft page

Hello Sphilbrick, on 5:32, 11 October 2017 you've deleted the page Draft:SOBI2 (G 13 (TW)). I am still trying to finish the rework of this page. Could you please restore it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinitySu (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@TrinitySu:

Done--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS

What do you reckon my chances are at getting my OTRS back? It wasn't taken away under a cloud. I don't have much to do these days now that I have retired from NPP and ACTRIAL is up and running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think they should be good, but I'm biased :)--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pushpin map

Good night, Sphilbrick. I would like to know if there is any pushpin map of the province of Badajoz and other provinces. Cofrade2016 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cofrade2016: I don't know, but I bet the editors who hang out at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop can help.--S Philbrick (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN


	Hello Sphilbrick: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Carolyn Badding standing with yarns.jpg

Hi, Sphilbrick. In 2013, I deleted File:Carolyn Badding standing with yarns.jpg for lacking a license. You restored the file and added {{PermissionOTRS}}, but the file remains without a license and was recently tagged for deletion as such. Could you take a look and add the license the copyright owner released this image under? ℯ xplicit 00:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Explicit: You are correct, while we did receive a permission statement with an acceptable license I simply added the OTRS tag and forgot to add the license. I have now done so.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Recovery of my article

Dear Sir, As i am new Wikipedia and I am not a content writer, so i make some mistake in writing article in Wiki. I don't understand why you delete the page Anmolmani. Sir its a request to please send me that article link. So that i got that article back. Sir i just need that content. Next time i will write again with all rules and regulation of wiki. I just need that content which i have write with my contribution panel. Please send me that content in contribution panel. So i can edit that.

Done I sent you a copy of the content to your email address.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Miranda listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of awards and nominations received by Miranda. Since you had some involvement with the List of awards and nominations received by Miranda redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Responded.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

MEO 245

Hi there, I noticed you deleted my edits on MEO 245, which, OK, but I also completed discography boxes for albums/ singles with chart positions/albums with my Kent Music Report Book refernece. You didn't need to delete those. I wasn't able to find those and put them back. Are you able to do this please? Thank you.Tobyjamesaus (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tobyjamesaus: I'm traveling at the moment, but I did restore the visibility of the edits, so you can recover the non copyright issues.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you. I've done that now - Cheers. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Streisand effect and WP:REVDEL

Someone should inform those who need the latter that the former is implicated. And that the best, fastest, confidential and most efficient way to get the latter is to directly e-mail a friendly administrator. And provide them with a list. Works way better and faster than sending an e-mail to the wikipedia foundation. That solution is not readily apparent to outsiders. It took me years to figure it out. That's my suggestion. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good advice --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I want you to know that I fully sympathize with your issues on ANI regarding the privacy report/REVDEL issues. I really appreciate your effort and contribution to the encyclopedia project, which vastly outweighs my own. I wasn't in the slightest bit offended, nor did I assume ill will on your part. I was a little embarrassed about my mistake, and sometimes when my cheeks get hot I make tongue in cheek comments and come off as a bit cheeky, or at worst rude. I assure you that my comments were meant in jest. I learned a lot from your feedback and have taken note of it for future reference. I'm not sure if there's a quick solution to the problem, but for my part I will dedicate some thought to it, throw out some ideas and keep a level attitude if they get knocked back. Cheers again and nice to meet you on Wikipedia. Hope we have opportunities to collaborate in future! Edaham (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Urgent email

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Got it thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi Sphilbrick -- I'd love to know more about the copyright rationale for deleting the additions/revisions I'd made to the Liverpool, Tex., page that you removed and reverted. I'd thought they were well within 'fair use' application of the source materials and were also in keeping with the source's citation requirements. I'm happy to learn more about this area.

-- Almadenmike (mikeross2@prodigy.net) Almadenmike (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Almadenmike: In general, text contributions to Wikipedia should be in your own words. There are some exceptions (which don't apply in this particular case): one example is material which is in the public domain or otherwise licensed with an acceptable free license to use as is can be used as is, but only if the the tone, and style are encyclopedia and comply with our other policies and guidelines, and are correctly referenced.

The second exception includes material inside quotes was set off by block quotes, but this material ought not to be longer than necessary. In addition, the should be some particular value to using the original words rather than a rephrasing. Referencing is also required. In this particular example, I don't see a legitimate reason for using the original material which would justify placing it in quotes.

While the material you added was not a pure copy and paste, it was so close to the original letter qualifies as a close paraphrase. This is still considered a copyright problem.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Almadenmike: retry ping --S Philbrick (Talk) 17:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

UTRS IPBE application

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just Chilling (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thank you for getting the content back to me :)Frank Carlin (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

I removed the copyvio from Draft:Oughterard GAA, and revdel'd the content rather than deleting, since the lede was substantial and doesn't appear to me to contain any copyvio in Earwig or on a spot check. If I missed something here, please let me know :) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Sounds good. I normally try to assess whether anything salvageable be left after removing the copyvio, but sometimes I get caught up in making sure whether it's a backwards copy are not and when I finally resolved that, I forget to consider excising rather than deleting. I deliberately tag rather than delete precisely so that we have four eyes looking at it. Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem: I was more checking to see if there was another copyvio source I had missed. Thanks for all the work you put into this :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 NCAA Division I women's basketball

Going by the red links at 2017–18 NCAA Division I women's basketball rankings, there's a lot of work to do, this season. — Wylie pedia 10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Unfortunately, many of those pages created last year were created by a blocked user.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@CAWylie:I did Texas 2017–18 Texas Longhorns women's basketball team (except for the schedule which is a pain to do)--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the ones I came across for the SEC were deleted because of the sockpuppet. Shameful because he has good intentions. And yes, the rosters and schedules are a pain; the latter helps once you get a conference going. — Wylie pedia 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Haven't seen anything yet.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Should be a WP:Newspapers.com thing --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Unfortunately, nothing. I even checked my other two folders, and did a search for "Newspaper.com". --S Philbrick (Talk) 03:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Newspapers.com.
Message added 17:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Global accounts list

You know, a while back I got myself an error message when editing an OTRS template on commons, and it just occurred to me to check, but it seems like the reason was that I haven't been added the the group on the global accounts list. GMG ^talk 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I sent you an email.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually 3. My apologies for not waiting until I had fully investigated before firing off emails.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. No rush either. I've pretty much just been doing OTRS on the weekends anyway. GMG ^talk 17:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Sphilbrick. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is newspapers.com.
Message added 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for all your help in protection of v andalism.

Jesus Christ X (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Sissoko

enough is enough

Hey dude. Why did you delete my edit I did on Sissoko? You are talking about copyright issues, but the page you linked has taken all its content from Wikipedia. Anyhow, if something was copyrighted, why didn't you remove that bit and keep the rest of the edit? – Terje Christiansen (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terje Christiansen: Much of the material you added matched

this site. If it actually came from another Wikipedia article, it is considered acceptable to in a way to preserve attribution. Best practices are outlined in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Had that been included in the edit summary, that would have identified that did come from Wikipedia, and would not of been applied as a copyright violation. I am puzzled to learn where it came from. Can you identify?--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's from older versions of the article Terje Christiansen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If you actually take a look at the site you are talking about, you will see that it's just copy paste from Wikipedia. – Terje Christiansen (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terje Christiansen:I am still not sure I understand the nature of your edit. Even though you've been an editor for five years I see that you do not have all that many edits so you are still learning how things work here. Edit summaries a very helpful in identifying what you are doing. As previously mentioned, if you are copying from another Wikipedia article there is a way to do that. If you are restoring some information previously deleted from an article that should not of been deleted you should mention that in the edit summary. You did use an edit summary, but it simply says "Updated & corrected" Which doesn't give any indication that it is the addition of material that had been in the article before. I took a brief glance at the edits in the last three years, and don't see the removal of material that would match the addition you made. I may well of missed it but you can help us out by identifying what you are doing.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the site you linked to, you will see it is from December 2010. It is identical to this version: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Sissoko&oldid=402018507 .

I'm not an editor, I'm just an registered user. I was around on this site for about one year, then I retired in 2013, because of this site's bureaucracy, and sometimes annoying non-constructive interfering in my "work" on this site. I'm not interested in «how things work here». I'm just here to improve articles sporadically (mainly about football). – Terje Christiansen (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are an editor.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay then. But when is this mistake corrected? Terje Christiansen (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terje Christiansen: That's up to you. If you add the material again, and properly identify it with an appropriate edit summary, it will probably survive.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of what I wrote. Maybe the version that was deleted can be restored – Terje Christiansen (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Terje Christiansen: Part of what you restored included the phrase "The 2006–2007 season got off to a flying start for Sissoko..." and "the Italian manager quickly became quite fond of the newly formed defensive midfielder".

That doesn't strike me as appropriate encyclopedic tone, and another editor concurred removing it with this edit:

link

I concur but will leave it to a consensus of editors as to how it should be worded. However the next step is not to reinsert language which has been removed, but to open a discussion on the talk page to talk through how best to phrase the text.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you just restore the edit I made 3 November and then remove the phrases you don't like? And you didn't only remove text. His career statistics was also updated in my edit. – Terje Christiansen (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that doesn't work for me.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

As additional clarification — you did two things in your edit. One was to update some numbers without providing a source. I'm not can restore unsourced data. If I were to do anything it would be to identify that the existing data does not have a source and should be sourced or removed. The second thing you did was restore some wording which had been deliberately removed as an encyclopedic. I've explained that you should open up a discussion to see if editors agree that the encyclopedic wording ought to be restored. I can imagine that other editors will concur but if you want to pursue that, go ahead. I'm not going to restore wording that I thought was appropriately removed.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I just have to laugh of you, trying to be as difficult as possible. You made a mistake removing my edit, which you mistakenly thought was copyright infringement, and now you are making all possible excuses not to revert your mistake. I guess it's people like you that make people not bother contributing. – Terje Christiansen (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Many days, I enjoy my contributions to Wikipedia. Then there are times, like this one, when I'm tempted to give it all up. I understand that you have very limited experience with Wikipedia, so you don't understand some of our very necessary processes. I've tried to be patient with you but you seem to prefer being difficult. For the record, if you are going to add material to Wikipedia that exists in another article or a prior version of the article it is extremely helpful to identify that in the edit summary. We have a program that flags such additions and identifies them as possible copyright violations. Had you identified what you are doing, I still would've reverted it but I would've reverted it for a different reason, rather than tagging it as a copyright violation. You tried to reinsert language that had been removed in the past and didn't explain that. You added some numbers but didn't accompany them with a link to a reliable source. Both of those additions were properly reverted. The only problem is that I identified them as a copyright issue because they were flagged as a possible copyright issue. You are welcome to either contribute properly or go away. Please choose one. I expect to be traveling to the end of November so I hope you'll take my advice to heart but if you choose to complain some more, it may take some time for me to respond.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

OTRS summary table

Hi Sphilbrick, Jytdog started an WP:AN thread about User:KDS4444's requests on OTRS to be a paid editor. He referenced the page User:Sphilbrick/temp, which apparently summarized some occurrences. Is it really OK to publish that on-wiki? It contains the real names of people who emailed OTRS for help; do we print on-wiki that someone has emailed OTRS? I've proactively suppressed that page. I could very well be wrong, but better to suppress incorrectly and fix it in a while than leave it public if I am right. Could you address this, either here (actually my preference) or the AN thread? Thanks --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Good call. My apologies. My intention was to post something on the (supposedly) private OTRS wiki, but I had some issues with formatting, and I started in a personal subpage to get the formatting straightened out. I then posted additional info at the OTRS wiki, but my bad for not thinking to delete my test posting here. I have naively (and until today correctly) thought that no one would find my user supages unless they were looking for them and made sure to use a title that didn't give it away, but that apparently wasn't good enough. You made the right call. (I'm in New Orleans, or I would have responded sooner.) --S Philbrick (Talk) 00:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That explains it. Glad that my instincts were right, and I saw it fairly quickly. No significant harm done, I think. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Kazuba sock-puppeting

I noticed you deleted Kazuba's userpage back in 2016 because he was using it inappropriately by spamming YouTube videos. This user is now sock-puppeting on a new account Miistermagico and trolling peoples talk-pages. [1], he mentions on his new account " My earlier user page was eliminated". Can you ban this individual for sock-puppeting? He has recently been banned on a forum I am on so I signed up here to notify Wikipedia of his behaviour. Watcher1968 (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See next post.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sphilbrick, This shall be interesting.

Let's see if I have learned any thing from my mistakes. I don't remember spamming YouTube videos on the wikipedia around 2016. That I have been "banned on a forum I am on so I signed up here to notify Wikipedia of his behaviour." is news to me. At the moment I am still on the Magic Cafe Forum. Check out miistermagico (Yes. That is with 2 ii's) on google. It is your call. What ever pleases you dear Sphilbrick tickles me to death. Miistermagico (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You are a known liar. Your user-page on your account Kazuba had hundreds of spamful YouTube videos, that is why it was deleted. Also why are you sock-puppeting? Watcher1968 (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Watcher1968, The name miistermagico is more pleasing. It was given to me by my wife. I no longer use the kazuba account. My email address changed. "You are a known liar. Your user-page on your account Kazuba had hundreds of spamful YouTube videos, that is why it was deleted. Also why are you sock-puppeting". You seem to be very misinformed. My user Kazuba page was deleted because it just was not up to the correct standards. It contained too much information. I tend to ramble on. I have tried to correct this. Miistermagico (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miistermagico (talk • contribs)

Dear Sphilbrick,

Please forgive Watcher1969. He has a tendency to exaggerate things.Miistermagico (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miistermagico and Watcher1968: simply having two accounts isn't sockpuppetry, using them against WP:PAGs is, especially as in having another account do what the other got blocked or warned for, or as in giving the impression there are two or more users supporting some edits instead of only one user. Since Kazuba is not blocked, it isn't sockpuppetry. I recommend posting a public notice on both accounts that Miistermagico has two accounts, that should do for now. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sphilbrick,

Thank you. I haven't the slightest idea what a sockpuppet is. If i did something wrong it was an

accident. Miistermagico (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: I'm not Sphilbrick. The germane WP:PAG is explained at WP:SOCK. Just for the record: I was not endorsing your edits, but just saying that it is not sockpuppetry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A heads up to both of you and to tps, I am traveling, with limited internet access and limited time, so may or may not have time to look into this, but not right away. Not home until 29th.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Recovering DiCamillo Bakery

Hi. I wanted to create a page Draft:DiCamillo Bakery and noticed that it has been deleted by you. Please recover it to my Userspace. This will be a COI notification article with the proper disclosure. I've already started working on it and found many sources proving notability (NY Times mentions, multiple newspaper mentions, book mentions). Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo:

Done See User:Bbarmadillo/DiCamillo_Bakery --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: thank you! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Khosiat Boboeva

I've done as best I can. Trouble is, a lot of it is titles and things - paper titles, names of awards, universities - and there's only so much I can do with those. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit of Manjit Minhas

Hello, I'm new on here and I was attempting my first edit. I seen that you reverted it back for copyright issue so I must have made an error. Can you please explain so that I may try again (the correct way)? CGillis (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@CGillis: It doesn't necessarily follow that because I removed something you "must have made an error". We are all human and I know I make mistakes. I don't think I did in this case but let's discuss.

You added some material which came from this page. I appreciate that you included a citation (many new editors do not) but you used the exact wording of the source material. You not only cannot use the exact wording, you can even loosely paraphrase it (See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). In general, unless the text is freely licensed, you should write the material in your own words. In some cases it might be appropriate to include the exact wording but this should be done by setting off the material in quotes or using a block quote template, and even that situation should only be done for relatively short passages and situations where the original wording is preferable to an editor's own words (for example a famous speech).

Let me know if you need more information.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I just tried again to update, after reading all the copyright information, I believe now that it should fall within the copyright guidelines. Could you possibly check for me just to make sure? Thank you for your assistance. CGillis (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@CGillis: It did not trigger an entry in Copypatrol, so that's good enough for me. Thanks. --S Philbrick (Talk) 16:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)