User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 90

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 85

←

Archive 88

→

Fran Garmon

hi Sphilbrick, just wondering if living=no is correct regarding the talkpage of Fran Garmon? article doesn't mention anything about it, and i have been unable to find an obit on her, did find this news item of March 17, 2018 which states she attended the event. thanks, Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Coolabahapple: As you can see, I wasn't even able to track down a birth date. However, my search for information did not uncover an obituary and, as you note, she attended an event relatively recently so I assume she is still alive.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks, i have added a blp tag:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft page deletion

Hi there, I created a draft page which was very quickly deleted with the reason being that it was similar to the other web page. I am the creator of the other web page which the draft page was similar to. How do I recreate the draft page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria.springermaterials (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maria.springermaterials:This is more complicated that you might have surmised.

One issue that we do not require proof of identify to create a user name, so we have no (obvious) way to confirm that you are the same person as the author of the material. (That can be addressed,but read on.)

A second issue is that when material is written on behalf of an organization, it is quite common for the organization to make sure the copyright is transferred to the organization. I don't know whether that is the case here.

The third issue is probably the most important. If you are associated with Springermaterials, then you have a WP:COI and should not be directly writing an article about the subject, but should leave it to independent editors.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. What would be our options as a company to create a product page? Can we suggest it for creation to Wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria.springermaterials (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Maria.springermaterials: Wikipedia:Requested_articles is the place to request an article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I've just submitted a request for a jorunal and trade publication creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria.springermaterials (talk • contribs) 13:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia entry on Adrian d'Hage

Sphilbrick. Thank you for your comments. I will now address the issues you have raised, but reverting to a very early, and quite deficient version of the entry, including removal of photographs, is not particularly helpful. The latest edits were made in response to a series of complaints I received about the Wikipedia article being woefully out of date. I have similarly, and reluctantly published an author's website (adriandhage.com) as I'm not a fan of self-promotion - the deficient Wikipedia entry was left deficient for years. In terms of the copyright issues - and they were never clear to me - Wheeler Books, for example, has an audio book of mine (The Maya Codex) on sale - as do many other bookstores around the world, but as I've pointed out, I own the copyright and that can be verified on the Australian Penguin website for authors. Whilst I accept that normally, there might be an issue with someone claiming to be author John Smith, there is, to my knowledge, only one of me in the world. It is a highly unusual, if not unique name. Having read the biographical guidelines, I can see that at times, the latest entry raises issues of neutrality. I'm away at present, but I'll be back in my studio on 22 May and I will remove the offending issues (comments on the success of books etc) and if there are still issues, we can discuss. As mentioned above, I've only added to this entry because of complaints and criticisms of the original Wikipedia entry. Best wishes, Adrian d'Hagé. Adhage01 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Adhage01: Thanks for your note. My tone in my earlier response sound cranky it's because, well I am cranky about this issue, but I need to trust my concerns at those responsible, not you.

It's my opinion that, we as a community need to do a better job regarding COI issues. We are inundated with COI issues, and while it is understandable that when overwhelmed, the acceptable first steps are the removal of COI edits and the tagging of articles to note the existence of COI/paid editing, but we somehow need to move beyond that and work on improving the articles in a timely way.

I am sympathetic to the view of an article by the subject of an article — noting that it is deficient and progress toward improvement seems excruciatingly slow.

That said, our pillar of neutrality is exceedingly important, and permitting the subject of articles to directly edit them would compromise the reputation of the encyclopedia.

I will note as many people do not realize this, that there is an acceptable way for the subject to help with the improvement of the article. It is perfectly acceptable to propose changes and improvements on the talk page of an article, then let independent editors make the changes. In the case of articles where there are only a handful of editors watching the talk page, this may be insufficient by itself and there is a way to bring these request to the attention of more editors.

I still think more needs to be done but I'm at a loss to identify better solutions at this time.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Adhage01, if you request changes on the talk-page and include the text {{request edit}} (exactly so, including the curly parentheses) in your post, it is likely to be answered within a reasonable time. There used to be a huge backlog for such requests, but one dedicated editor has cleared that, and the system now works moderately well. If you do make such a request, please remember to disclose your conflict of interest, and to supply independent reliable sources for any proposed changes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Which editor? I want to thank them.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to Spintendo, who did a heroic job of answering innumerable requests, and then got hauled to ANI, (section "User:Spintendo and the {{request edit}} queue") by a dissatisfied "customer" – talk about ingratitude! By the way, Adhage01, I looked at Adrian d'Hagé and didn't immediately see anything too much wrong with it; but if you'd like to list any errors or omissions of verifiable fact on the talk-page there I'll try to take a look (I have it on my watchlist). Regards to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand winegrowers

Hi there, I've been trying to improve the state of our New Zealand wine articles over the last 2-3 months or so, since they have been woefully inadequate, non-existent or flat out wrong for a long time. Part of that effort has been to reach out to the good people at New Zealand Winegrowers, our national wine industry body. I wrote to them and offered to accumulate information and improve these articles, using access to their data, since they are pretty much the only producer of the country's statistics about grape growing and wine production. On April 23 you reverted their (probably first ever) attempt at contributing to Wikipedia on the New Zealand Winegrowers article, and then block their account. I can safely assume that you were not gracious enough to get in contact with them first, since you seem to live in the US. Now I have to explain to their now probably somewhat traumatised comms manager what happened. It seems that you are running some sort of automated plagiarism detection ban-hammer script. I'm not even sure what the offending text was, since the edit was reverted in such a way that I can't even see the change, so I can't even help by editing their contribution as appropriate. In summary, can you please use a smaller hammer next time? At least make the revert visible so I can help. Jon (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Many editors are volunteering to watch recent changes and look for many things including copyright issues. In addition, we do have an automated plagiarism detector, but the reversions are almost all done manually.

If you take a glance at Copypatrol, you will see that this tool alone accounts for identification of tens of thousands of issues. In each case, we will provide some sort of notification, almost always in the form of edit summary and in many cases in the form of a notice on the editor's talk page. If by "contact", you mean contact within the Wikipedia system, that almost always occurs and did occur in this case. If by contact you mean reaching out through some other channel such as email or telephone, in most cases we don't have that information.

The block of the account occurred because the account name was in violation of our username policy as was explained on the talk page. I happen to be a critic of the way we issue usernames, and this is a good example of how things can go wrong. I have proposed changes which have fallen on deaf ears, but those changes would have prevented this problem.

We don't want copyright violations in a pages, so when identified they are removed as soon as possible.

I confess I'm slightly puzzled at the implicit request for the text of the removed edit. Whenever I edit, if I'm going to add or change more than a handful of words, I do the composition in an external editor and save the results. I've come to learn that not everybody does this, but it still amazes me, especially in the case of edits including copyrighted text, which by definition is available elsewhere.

I do happen to be a resident of the US although I'm not clear why you think that's relevant. I do think that Wikipedia would benefit by having better coverage of New Zealand wine articles, but those improvements must be done within the guidelines that we expect everyone to follow.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-up, you mentioned that the material reverted was not an edit by you but by the organization. You should ask them to read wp:coi as their editing is a violation of our conflict of interest policy.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - cheers for getting back to me. It's more that I can't see in the view history of the article the commit that was reverted, and so I can't see what the gist or the general intent of their edit was. I realise this is a common problem with folks unfamiliar with WP; I understand the issues around copyrighted material. I just want to improve the article! :-) Jon (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice: If you enable email (in your preferences) I'll email you the relevant edit.--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, cheers Jon (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Email sent.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my updates in ENKA wiki page

Hi Sphilbrick, I've noticed you reverted my updates to ENKA wiki page yesterday. Thank you for enlightening me. Would it be acceptable I made minor changes (like revenue update, external links corrections as some of them seem wrong/inactive) in the first stage ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengizco (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@/Tengizco:If you are associated with the company it is important that you read WP:COI.

I see that you are a very new editor (welcome!). You may not yet be aware that it is considered a good practice to use edit summaries to explain your edit. I do see that you used an edit summary for which I applaud you (many new editors take some time to learn to do this), but your question to me suggest you did not see my edit summary accompanying the reversion of your edits. In short, I noted that you were including material from the company site which is subject to copyright and thus a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. In most cases, edits to articles must be made in your own words. It isn't an issue of minor versus major changes.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Arturo Ferrarin

Hi Sphilbrick, I've noticed you reverted my updates yesterday; i think you should/could reconsider your cancellation because isn't "copyright issue" re http://www.livingwarbirds.com/savoia-marchetti-s-64.php if source is wikipedia. You can easily find out by reading the bottom of the page or this wiki page Carlo_del_Prete#1928_distance_records using wayback machine at your convenience. Assianir (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Assianir: We recognize that occasionally editors do include text from existing Wikipedia articles. This is permitted but must be done in a particular way for two reasons. The first reason is to preserve attribution, and the second reason is that unless it is tagged correctly, it will show up as a false positive in our copyright detection software.

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.

Following this procedure will not only preserved the required attribution, but the editors tracking potential copyright issues will check the edit summary and not revert it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Understood. The fact was the same and they both participated by cooperating, so I thought it would be a good idea to describe it in the same way; now i agree it is a good practice not to do in this way (without making it explicit). By the way, did you need to delete the photo from commons too? Assianir (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

We aren't on the same page.

While I looked at the specific text, in general I think it's something is described in one article and ought to be described in another article, it makes perfect sense to use the exact same wording. However you can just copy and paste it you have to provide attribution as described. Your response makes it sound like I said it was a bad idea.

What image are we talking about? My last deletion was two days ago and I don't think it's related to this article. I think I proposed an image for deletion today but I think it was a different article. I'm not saying definitely that I didn't do it, but you didn't identity it, and I'm not recalling it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

i'm talking about the image that you deleted from the page Arturo Ferrarin; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Savoia-Marchetti_S.64_Ferrarin_%26_Del_Prete.jpg This image isn't a Copyright Issue because it came from Commons. And, please, can you change your edit by removing copyright issues after ascertaining that they are not? I've never edited by copying something outside of Wikipedia and i would very much appreciate that there were no cancellations with that motivation in my chronology. Assianir (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I realize you are relatively new, so try to remember that you haven't yet learn the lingo that we use in this place. The word "deletion" means to remove from the project. I didn't delete that image. What happened (and it is understandable that you wouldn't know this) is that when a copyright issue is identified and reverted, the reversion affects all consecutive edits by the same editor. It appears you added that image immediately prior to incorrectly copying some text so the reversion reversed both edits. Feel free to restore it.

Regarding "And, please, can you change your edit by removing copyright issues after ascertaining that they are not?": I've read it three times and still don't quite know what it means. My guess is that you are saying if I revert something because it's a copyright violation and it turns out not to be, I should undo my revert. It's my practice to do exactly that and on several occasions, I've learned that what look like a copyright violation actually wasn't, and I undid the reversion. That doesn't apply in this case because copying material within Wikipedia without providing the proper attribution is a copyright violation. You are free to re-add it if you follow the best practices and identify the source in the edit summary.

You've use the word "cancellation" twice. I'm not aware that that term has any particular meaning in Wikipedia, but it certainly doesn't apply to what I did. The term "revert" is the term used when an edit is made that reverts an article to an earlier version. Some editors might say "rollback" because that's the mechanism used to carry it out.--S Philbrick (Talk) 22:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I know i haven't yet learn the lingo and i know that my English is very poor; i just try to do my best to increase wikipedia with real information and not copyright issue (outside wikipedia). I'm sure you did the same, but sincerely, I still do not fully understand the meaning of your "revert". At this point I think is useless to continue. Initially I thought it might be your mistake or a misunderstanding but now you have all the information and the complete picture. I trust you and If you think that no corrections are needed, i will leave the voice without what you reverted (photo and reference included) for a better wikipedia. Sorry for evrything, it does not happen again. bye Assianir (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick and Assianir. I was contacted by Assianir about his problems with this article, probably because I am a fluent Italian speaker (I'm definitely not an expert on aviation.) Anyhow, I have now placed Template: Backwards copy on Talk:Carlo del Prete, confirming that the article on livingwarbirds.com credits the text to Wikipedia. This should obviate further problems with tagging either that article or Arturo Ferrarin as copyvio. As a general rule, before deleting and suppressing an edit on copyvio grounds [1], it's a good idea to check the putative source carefully to see if it explicitly credits Wikipedia, as was the case here. Sphilbrick, by "cancellation", Assianir meant "deletion" ("cancellazione" on the Italian Wikipedia). In this case there was a not a simple revert but a revision deletion. I am now building the article back up to fill in the details of Ferrarin's life and briefly discuss the 1928 flights which were in the deleted revisions. Note that the new text is not verbatim from Carlo del Prete and uses a different source. I've also re-added File:Savoia-Marchetti S.64 Ferrarin & Del Prete.jpg to the article. Assianair, please don't be discouraged and thank you very much for creating an article on a fascinating figure in Italian aviation. Best wishes to you both, Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Voceditenore: for your involvement. I did not know that @Assianir:'s native language is not English which I suspect contributed to the challenges. I've been thinking more about this incident and I can see why Assianir would be unhappy about the sequence of events. From their point of view, they are an editor freely volunteering their time to help make Wikipedia a better place and while working on an article, someone comes along and undoes some of their work. The edit which was undone (reverted) included some material from another Wikipedia article so presumably should not be a copyright issue. In addition, at the same time this edit was reversed, an important photo in the article disappeared. When they inquired, fully expecting that an explanation that the edit involved material from another Wikipedia article would result in a restoration of the material, that's not what happened. The edit in question had been revision deleted, and the photo is not restored.

I suspect I'd be unhappy if it happened to me.

However, I'd like to put this incident in perspective, to see if Assianir can appreciate the challenges for editors trying to keep this project free of copyright violations.

We have a software program which identifies potential copyright violations. It looks at recent edits, and scours the Internet to see if the text in the edit matches text on other sites. (Unfortunately, the program does not simultaneously check to see if the text might appear in an existing Wikipedia article. I wish it did.)

It is critical to understand that this program flags something like 1000 potential issues every week. While I recently learned there are over 600 editors working on new page patrol, there are maybe half a dozen actively working on the copyright incidents and often only two or three on any day. We recently interacted with an editor who accepted that the edit was a copyright violation, but felt that the reviewer's responsibility was to clean it up for them. Wouldn't that be nice! If there were 100 volunteers, maybe. If there were 100 incidents a week, maybe. But given the volume of incidents, when a violation is detected and there appears to be no reason to question it, the rollback tool is used which can create some collateral damage.

The editors reviewing the potential copyright violations do not automatically rollback without any investigation. The tool is not good at identifying some sources of text, such as material created by the federal government which is automatically public domain. Or the text which might be explicitly licensed can be accidentally flagged. When I looked at the purported source of the material it had the following at the bottom of the page:

That clear language almost always means that the material is under full copyright. I've now looked closer and see that Wikipedia is referenced for some of the material. I'm not sure that they can take material from Wikipedia and then declare that it is full copyright with all rights reserved — I'll leave that for a copyright expert to comment on, but my initial review identified the full copyright statement.

That wasn't the end of my review. I always check the edit summary.

For example this edit was flagged, but the edit summary states "(New article from CC-BY source.)" There are many similar examples were editor explains in the edit summary that what looks like a copyright violation actually is not.

Copying within Wikipedia is permitted but as our guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia states:

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

Many editors (unfortunately not all) are aware of this requirement and when followed it helps prevent problems. That wasn't followed in this particular case, which means it really technically was a copyright violation and thus in eligible to be simply undone.

I have removed the revision deletion from the editing question although it looks like recovering the material is no longer necessary.

On a positive note, I put in a plea at the administrator's noticeboard recently letting them know we need more volunteers, and I noticed today for the first time, that there are some new names in the list of editors working on these issues. It's a small start.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. The livingwarbirds.com article was a verbatim copy of this 2010 version of Savoia-Marchetti S.64 including the infobox, image caption, headings, and references. For future reference, websites cannot copy Wikipedia and then add their own stricter copyright to it. If they do, they are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright conditions, i.e. CC-by-SA. I'm actually a Copyright problems clerk here, but to my shame, do very little work in that area now. When simple unattributed copying from within Wikpedia is discovered, the normal practice is not to revert the edits, but add the attribution template to the talk page and let the original editor know about the issue. Having said that, if there is no clue in the edit summary and the text is also found on an external site, as in this case, it can become painfully complicated to sort out. You definitely have my sympathies. Anyhow, all's well that ends well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: I agree with how it should have been handled. Had I noticed the reference to Wikipedia in the source material, I would have handled it as you suggested. Unfortunately, my typical process includes looking at the bottom of the page, and when I see the copyright symbol and "all rights reserved" over 99 out of 100 times this means it's a copyright problem.

Most of our editors are never going to Wikipedia page to another. Of the few that do, most are unaware that we have a desired way to signify this in the edit summary to avoid these problems. Given how rare it is, I despair at how to let editors know how they should handle this.

I thank you again for helping to step in and improve the article.

And thanks for the work you have done at copyright problems. I know how thankless it can be. I used to be a regular there but burnt out.

As an aside, I feel that copy patrol should be alerting us to these situations and think it should be relatively easy. In fact, I wrote up a proposal a month or so ago that has been ignored Proposal here.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a handy template to let editors know how to handle copying within Wikipedia: Template:Uw-copying. I know what you mean about burnout. Now I only deal with copyvio if I happen come across it or someone asks me to check. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Office Timeline company Page

Hello Shphilbrick,

I had our company page deleted by you in April of 2016 but I still want to get that information out and have our very own Wikipedia Page. In regards to the last version of the draft that was available (also available here: http://sergiubirzu.com/wiki.txt) what should I do to get this information Wikipedia compliant in such a manner that it doesn't sound too corny or overhyped as well as reflect the reality of our product.

It is very important to us to be part of Wikipedia not only as a means of our visitors trusting us even more but we also think that this collaboration is mutually beneficial for them as well.

User: sergiu.birzu - 12:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Please get back to me and teach me how to comply. --Sergiu.birzu (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sergiu.birzu: Can you explain what you mean by "our company page". In most cases, when I see that language it means the person using it is an employee of the company or possibly the company is a client of a marketing firm. If either of those are the case, then you probably have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. In short, we want articles written by neutral editors which almost certainly means you should not be writing this article. Tell me more about your relationship with this company so I can see if the conflict of interest restriction does not apply to you.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shphilbrick: I was an employee of them for the past two years and you are right that it looks like it's a conflict of interest. The material presented however was not hyperinflated or biased in any way and I tried to keep a neutral attitude (no shilling whatsoever). Can I repost the info if I'm not working for them anymore or should I find someone else to give their own neutral take on this business? I would like this listing to go live since I feel like I've done more damage to their brand name by having a "flag" present here on Wikipedia.

User: sergiu.birzu - 06:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Delectation of Dawn Bread

Hi Sphilbrick, I write an article on Dawn Bread two times and you delete them twice by saying that it is copied from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/dawn-bread.php. First of all i am new user and want to write an informative article on my company "Dawn Bread". The data i used in article was the the same from my companies Facebook Page (https://www.facebook.com/pg/dawnbreadofficial/about/?ref=page_internal. The writer of https://www.ukessays.com/essays/management/dawn-bread.php copied it from there. Now i want to write an article on wikipedia. Tell me what should i do?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqadduslhr (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that the material originally came from a Facebook page but that doesn't solve the problem. The content on that Facebook page is under full copyright. It cannot be used unless the company provides a free license (which I don't recommend).

It is still a copyright violation to use that material.

The second problem is that you are associated with the company and almost certainly have a conflict of interest. Please see WP:COI. We want articles written by neutral editors who are not associated with the subject.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Angry Birds Evolution edit

revert My edits weren’t vandalism the edit by LilHelpa did not make sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.33.20 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You changed "available" to "availableatles" in this edit --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC). Why is that not vandalism?--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well what could I put. It was already non-sense 204.152.33.20 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My IP has changed. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I ignored your previous comment. I can't take it seriously.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There are not four clans you can join in the game. 71.219.141.37 (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)